THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF AND

THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF AND-COORDINATION IN KAONDE
BY
MUSHIMA MUKE
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of the Degree of
Master of Arts in Linguistic Science
THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA
LUSAKA
(2014)
DECLARATION
I, Mushima Muke, solemnly declare that this dissertation:
(a) Represents my own work;
(b) Has not been submitted for a degree to this university or any other university before;
and
(c) Does not incorporate any published work or material from another dissertation.
Signed…………………………
Date……………………………
© 2014 by Mushima Muke
COPYRIGHT
All rights reserved. No part of this dissertation may be reproduced or stored in any form or by
any means without prior permission in writing from the author or the University of Zambia.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
This dissertation of MUSHIMA MUKE is approved as fulfilling in part the requirements for
the award of the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistic Science by the University of Zambia.
Signed:
Date:
………………………
………………………….
………………………
………………………….
……………………….
………………………….
ABSTRACT
This study examined the nature of and-coordination in Kaonde. In order to meet this goal, the
study sought, firstly, to identify conjuncts that are coordinated by and-equivalent in Kaonde.
Secondly, the study sought to identify and-coordinators in Kaonde. That is, it tried to identify
coordinators in Kaonde that are equivalent to ‘and’ in English. From the study, it was
observed that Kaonde has two (2) forms or variants of the coordinator ‘and’. These include;
ne and kabiji. Thirdly, the study sought to examine how and when the coordinators ne and
kabiji are used in Kaonde. From the data collected (through desk research, introspection and
simple phrase lists) and analyzed, it was observed that coordinators are used whenever one
needs to connect or link two or more linguistic units. The syntactic analysis of andcoordination in Kaonde was done using the X-bar theory of Government and Binding theory
while descriptive linguistics was employed to account for the semantic aspect of the study.
In addition, the study examined the nature of coordinate structures in Kaonde. It was
observed that a coordinate structure is usually made up of at least two conjuncts and a
conjunction. The conjuncts are conjoined together by a conjunction to form one larger
linguistic unit of the same kind. Further, it was observed that conjunctions play a very
important role in ensuring that coordinated meaning is expressed. The study explored
semantic functions of and-coordination in Kaonde. It was observed that and-coordination
denotes a relationship between and/or among conjuncts in a sentence. The conjunctions may
show a cause and effect relationship between conjuncts. They are also used to show
chronological sequence, contrast, condition or simply addition. Thus, by linking conjuncts in
a coordinate structure, they establish relationships that otherwise are not easy to understand.
In relation to the theoretical framework, the indication is that X-bar theory of Government
and Binding theory does apply to coordinate structures in Kaonde. With regard to the
findings, one would suggest that more research should be undertaken to analyse coordination
as a whole in Kaonde. That is, analysing coordination which covers all coordinators which
include; or and but. Lastly, there is need also to analyse possible coordinate structure
constraints in Kaonde.
iv
DEDICATION
Dedicated with love and gratitude to
Mr Duncan Muke and Mrs Mailes Zulu Muke
Parents and mentors
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I would like to give praise to Jehovah God for His wonderful favour and mercy by
keeping me in good health and strengthening me throughout my study. I am forever thankful
for the grace and blessings rendered to me.
Special thanks to Dr M. Nkolola-Wakumelo, my academic supervisor who guided me
throughout the work for it to be a success. I would also like to thank Dr. J. Simwiinga for
providing me with valuable support and timely advice.
I wish to express my gratitude to the informants that provided me with the data required for
this research. I am highly indebted to my family: my parents Mr. and Mrs. Muke and my
siblings for their unwavering support throughout my studies.
vi
Contents
THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF AND-COORDINATION IN KAONDE ................................ 1
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................... 2
COPYRIGHT.......................................................................................................................................... 3
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL ........................................................................................................... 4
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................................... iv
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. xii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................xiv
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY.......................................................................... 1
1.0
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Motivation for the Study ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Classification and Population of Kaonde Language .............................................................. 2
1.3
The Structure of Kaonde Language ........................................................................................ 3
1.3.1
The Phonology of Kaonde .............................................................................................. 3
1.3.2
Kaonde Syllable Structure .............................................................................................. 6
1.3.3
Kaonde Suprasegmental Phonemes ................................................................................ 8
1.3.4
The Morphology of Kaonde ............................................................................................ 9
1.3.5
Some Aspects of the Syntax of Kaonde ........................................................................ 17
1.6
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 19
1.7
Rationale ............................................................................................................................... 19
1.8
Aim and Objectives of the Study .......................................................................................... 20
1.9
Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 20
1.10
Operational Definitions ......................................................................................................... 21
1.11
Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 21
1.11.1
Research Design ............................................................................................................ 21
1.11.3 Sources of Data ................................................................................................................ 22
1.11.4
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 24
1.12
Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................ 24
1.13
Limitations of the Study........................................................................................................ 25
1.14
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................... 25
1.15
Structure of the Dissertation ................................................................................................. 25
1.16
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 26
vii
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 26
2.0
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 26
2.1 Coordination ............................................................................................................................... 27
2.2 Types of Coordination ................................................................................................................ 29
2.2.1 Syndetic Coordination.......................................................................................................... 29
2.2.2 Asyndetic Coordination ....................................................................................................... 29
2.2.3 Polysyndetic Coordination ................................................................................................... 30
2.3 Types of Coordinators................................................................................................................. 30
2.4 And–Coordination................................................................................................................... 31
2.5 Forms of And-Coordination ........................................................................................................ 31
2.5.1 Combinatory Coordination .................................................................................................. 32
2.5.2 Segregtory Coordination ...................................................................................................... 32
2.6 The Structure of And – Coordination .......................................................................................... 32
2.7 Studies on Coordination .............................................................................................................. 32
2.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................... 43
3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 43
3.1 Government and Binding (GB) Theory ...................................................................................... 45
3.1.1
Government................................................................................................................... 45
3.1.2
Binding.......................................................................................................................... 47
3.2 Organization of GB Grammar..................................................................................................... 49
3.2.1 X-Bar Theory ....................................................................................................................... 52
3.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 57
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ............................................... 58
4.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 58
4.1 And-Coordinators in Kaonde ...................................................................................................... 58
4.1.1 Ne Coordination .................................................................................................................. 58
4.1.2 Na Coordination ................................................................................................................... 61
4.1.3 Kabiji Coordination............................................................................................................. 62
4.2 Nature of Conjuncts in Kaonde ................................................................................................... 63
4.2.1 Lexical and Phrasal conjuncts .............................................................................................. 64
4.2.2 Coordination of Clauses/Sentences ...................................................................................... 71
4.2.3 Coordination of Unlike Items .............................................................................................. 75
4.2.4 Nested Coordinate Structures............................................................................................... 76
viii
4.3 Forms of And-Coordination in Kaonde ...................................................................................... 79
4.3.1 Syndetic Coordination.......................................................................................................... 79
4.3.2 Asyndetic Coordination ....................................................................................................... 80
4.3.3 Polysyndetic Coordination ................................................................................................... 81
4.4 Categories of And-Coordination ................................................................................................. 82
4.4.1 Combinatory Coordination .................................................................................................. 82
4.4.2 Segregatory Coordination .................................................................................................... 84
4.5 Nature of And-Coordinate Structures in Kaonde ........................................................................ 86
4.6 Agreement in And-Coordination ................................................................................................ 90
4.7 Semantic Analysis of And-Coordination .................................................................................... 95
4.8
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 99
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 100
5.0 General ...................................................................................................................................... 100
5.1 Summary of the Findings of the Study ..................................................................................... 100
5.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 102
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 103
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 108
Appendix 1: Coordination of Parts of Noun Phrases ...................................................................... 108
Appendix 2: Coordination of Verb Phrases .................................................................................... 111
Appendix 3: Coordination of Adjectives and Adjective Phrases .................................................... 114
Appendix 4: Coordination of Prepositions and Prepositional Phrases............................................ 116
Appendix 5: Coordination of Clauses/Sentential Constituent ........................................................ 118
Appendix 6: Coordination Unlikes ................................................................................................. 121
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A
Adjectives
AP
Adjective Phrase
Adv
Adverb
Adv P
Adverb Phrase
C-Command
Constituent Command
CSC
Coordinate Structure Constraint
Comp
Complement
Det
Determiner
DP
Determiner Phrase
ECP
Empty Category Phrase
GB
Government and Binding Theory
LCL
Law of Coordinates of Likes
LF
Logical Form
N
Noun
NP
Noun Phrase
O
Object
O Co
Ordinary Coordination
P
Preposition
PF
Phonetic Form
PP
Prepositional Phrase
PS Rules
Phrase Structural Rules
R- Expression
Referential Expression
x
S
Sentence
Sce Co
Scene-setting Coordination
Spec
Specifier
T
Tense
TGG
Transformational Generative Grammar
T Rules
Transformational Rules
UG
Universal Grammar
V
Verb
VP
Verb Phrase
X
Lexical Category
XP
Phrasal Category
&
Coordinator
&P
Coordinate Phrase
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Syllable Structure of kwakamwa nanzholo ………………………………………7
Figure 2: Syllable structure of Inga mpwa? ……………………………………………….. 8
Figure 3: Government Relation …………………………………………………………… 46
Figure 4: Case Assignment of DPs …………………………………………………………47
Figure 5: Binding Relation ……………………………….……………………………….. 48
Figure 6: Binding Principle ……………………………………………………………..… 48
Figure 7: Organisation of Grammar ………………..………………………………………50
Figure 8: Government and Binding Theory ……………………………………………….. 51
Figure 9: X-Schema ..……………………………………………………………………… 52
Figure 10: X-Schema of the NP The driver ..……….………………………………………53
Figure 11: X-Schema for Coordination …………………………………………………….. 54
Figure 12: X-Schema for the VP wajile ne kulala ...…..…………………………………… 55
Figure 13: Two-Termed Coordination ………………………………………………………55
Figure 14: Three-Termed Coordination ……...…………………………………………….. 56
Figure 15: Ne Coordination in X-Schema…...……………………………………………… 60
Figure 16: Na Coordination in X-Schema …………...………………………………………61
Figure 17: Kabiji Coordination in X-Schema …………………………………..………….. 63
Figure 18: Coordinate Structure of VPs ….………………………………………………… 67
Figure 19: Coordinate Structure of an AP ………….………………………………………69
Figure 20: Coordinate Structure of PP …………….……………………………………….. 71
Figure 21: Sentential Coordination ………………………………………………………… 72
Figure 22: Asydentic Coordination of Sentence (83) .………………………………………74
xii
Figure 23: Coordination of Unlikes ……….……………………………………………….. 76
Figure 24: Nested Coordination .…………………………………………………………… 78
Figure 25: Coordinate Structure of the NP John ne Mary………...…………………………87
Figure 26: Polysyndentic Coordinate Structure ...………………………………………….. 88
Figure 27: Sentential Coordination ………………………………………………………… 90
Figure 28: Coordination of Predicates…………………….………………………………..96
Figure 29: Coordination of Clauses ………..…………………………………………........96
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Phonetic Chart of Consonants and Semivowels in Kaonde …………..……..……...4
Table 2: Phonetic Chart of Vowel Phonemes in Kaonde ……..………………………….. ....6
Table 3: Nominal Class Prefixes in Kaonde ……………………………………………… ..11
Table 4: Pairs of Noun Classes and their Semantic Meaning ………………………………12
Table 5: Concord Chart ……………………………………………………………………..90
xiv
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.0
Introduction
This chapter gives background information to the study and states in a precise manner the
problem under investigation as well as the methodology used in examining the syntactic
process of AND-Coordination in Kaonde. It begins by giving a presentation on the motivation
for the study. Then it briefly discusses the language under investigation – Kaonde. Thereafter,
the statement of the problem, aim and objectives of the study are outlined together with
research questions. The chapter also discusses the significance of the study by laying out the
purpose of undertaking this investigation. Additionally, the methodology used in data
collection, data analysis and procedure are discussed in the second section of this chapter.
Further, this chapter discusses the scope and outlines the limitations of the study and lays out
the structure of the dissertation. Lastly, it provides the summary of topics discussed in the
chapter.
1.1
Motivation for the Study
In linguistics, syntax is the study of the principles and processes by which sentences are
constructed in particular languages. The term syntax is used to refer directly to the rules and
principles that govern the sentence structure of any individual language. According to Crystal
(1991: 86), “syntax is the study of rules governing the way words are combined to form
sentences in a language.” In addition, Heine and Nurse (1978) state that in syntax we study
how words are placed in a linear order, how they are grouped into larger, patterned units to
form phrases and clauses, and how those units relate to each other to form a hierarchy of
structures within structures. The main focus is on sentences. Sentences may consist of one or
more clauses. Sentences that have more than one clause may be referred to as compound or
complex. Compound sentences usually involve the linking of two or more sentences of equal
rank. The process of linking two or more linguistic units of a sentence to form a larger one is
called coordination.
Coordination is one of the most studied fields in theoretical syntax. It has been revealed from
different studies that although coordination as a linguistic phenomenon is language universal,
it differs a lot across languages and that different languages use different strategies to achieve
it (Dzameshie 1999; Nguyeni 2004; Heine and Nurse 1978, and Drellishak 2004). This is in
an instance in which language users want to express coordinated meaning; whatever
1
construction they use in such situations is a coordination strategy (Heine and Nurse 1978). In
this case, therefore, coordination is somehow language specific. Although a lot of studies
have been undertaken in the syntax of connectives, no study has been done to analyse the
syntax and semantics of coordination in Kaonde. It is against this background that this study
sought to investigate the nature of and-coordination in Kaonde.
1.2 The Classification and Population of Kaonde Language
According to the Central Statistical Office (CSO) (2010), the Zambian society is endowed
with many languages; there are officially 73 ethnic groups who speak different dialects, from
which, seven language clusters have been identified. There are seven languages or language
clusters that are used in Zambia besides English for official purposes such as broadcasting
(both on radio and television), literacy campaigns and the official dissemination of
information as well as taught in schools. These are (in alphabetical order), Bemba, Kaonde,
Lozi, Lunda, Luvale, Nyanja and Tonga. Kaonde is predominantly spoken in North Western
Province, particularly in Kasempa, Solwezi, Mufumbwe and Mumbwa. It is the second
widely used language of communication after Lunda in North Western province (29.6
percent). Lunda is the largest ethnic group with 34.5 percent. This is followed by Kaonde and
Luvale at 29.6 and 16.5 percent, respectively. In this study, standard Kaonde (the Kasempa
dialect) was used.
Kaonde, also known as KiKaonde, falls under the Niger-Congo language phylum, under
Bantu family in Zone L. According to Guthrie’s classification (1948) this Zone has 6 groups,
that is, groups 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60. Within these six groups there are 18 subgroups.
Kaonde belongs to group 40 and subgroup 41. Hence the language is classified by Guthrie as
L41. Kaonde is the only language under group 40. Kaonde is a Bantu language. The Bantu
family of languages covers the whole of southern Africa except in places where the Khoisan
languages are spoken. All the member languages of this group are similar in their structure
with the most prominent features being the noun class system and verb morphology as we
shall see later. Kaonde originated from Congo DR, hence the languages it is most closely
related with are found in that country. These include Sanga, Luba-Katanga and Hemba in that
order of similarity (Mann & Wright 1977). There are a number of dialectal variations of
Kaonde spoken throughout the country and beyond. These dialects manifest phonological,
morphological and syntactic and lexical differences. Notable among them is the standard
2
Kaonde spoken mainly in Kasempa district, the Solwezi-Lubango and the Mumbwa dialect
(Mambwe 2008).
1.3
The Structure of Kaonde Language
This section gives a brief account of the basic linguistic structure of the Kaonde language
focusing on the phonology, morphology and syntax. It should be noted that this section is not
a comprehensive account of the structure of Kaonde and should therefore be taken as a
general guide to the analysis of the findings of the study.
1.3.1 The Phonology of Kaonde
According to Mathews (2005) phonology is the study of sound systems of individual
languages and the nature of such systems. It is concerned with the manner in which the sound
and suprasegmental features defined by phonetics are actually put to use in natural human
languages. More precisely, phonology is concerned with the speech sounds and patterns
displayed by sounds and prosodic features in natural human languages. Phonology covers the
study of suprasegmentals (tone, length, stress and intonation), syllables, phonotactics and
phonological process and rules. This section briefly discusses the phonological structure of
Kaonde. The Kaonde phonological system includes segmental and suprasegmental elements.
According to Roach (1983: 32) “a segment is a unit of sound that can be combined with
others to form a sequence, thus phonemes are segments”. The discussion of the phonological
aspects of Kaonde is focused on the semi-vowels, consonantal and vowel phonemes,
suprasegmental phonemes and syllable structure of Kaonde.
1.3.1.1
Consonantal Phonemes and Semi-Vowels in Kaonde
Consonants can be defined from two points of view, that is, phonetically and phonologically.
In phonetic terms consonants are sounds that are produced with partial or complete
obstruction of air flow at some point in the vocal tract. In phonological terms a consonant is a
phonological unit which forms part of a syllable other than a nucleus (Mathews 2005).
According to Mathews (2005) a semi-vowel is a sound unit which is phonetically like a
vowel but whose place in syllable structure is characteristically that of a consonant. There are
two semi-vowels in Kaonde, and these can be presented in the following minimal pair; the
palatal approximant [j] as in kyamba [kjamba] ‘tower’ and the labio-velar approximant [w] as
in kwamba [kwamba] ‘to talk’. The chart below shows the consonantal phonemes and semivowels in Kaonde.
3
Table 1: Phonemic Chart of Consonants and Semi-Vowels in Kaonde.
Bilabial Labio
alveolar Post
dental
Plosive
p
Nasal
b
β f
t
s
z
Affricate
Lateral
Labio
Glottal
velar
d
k
g
ɲ
n
v
Velar
alveolar
m
Fricative
Palatal
∫
ᵹ
ʧ
ʤ
h
ɦ
l
Approximant
j
w
As already mentioned, consonants are speech sounds that are produced with either a partial or
complete obstruction in the flow of air at some point in the vocal tract and that point is what
is referred to as the point of articulation. In Kaonde, the following will be possible points of
articulation for consonants: bilabial, labiodental, alveolar, post alveolar, palatal, velar, labio
velar and glottal.
In order to show that the outlined consonants and semi-vowels are distinct segments in
Kaonde, a minimal pair test is conducted. A minimal pair is a pair of words from the same
language, that differ by only a single categorical sound, and that are recognized by speakers
as being two different words (Mathews 2005). When there is a minimal pair, the two sounds
are said to be examples of realizations of distinct phonemes. For instance, a pair test is
conducted in which speakers of a language, Kaonde in this case, are presented with possible
pairs and asked whether they are the same forms or different. For example, the following list
shows minimal pairs;
(1)
(a) [mpila] ‘soccer’
(b) [mbila] ‘news/ rumor’
4
(2)
(a) [munwe] ‘finger’
(b) [mutwe] ‘head’
(3)
(a) [kuʤila] ‘to cry’
(b) [kuʧila] ‘to be red’
(4)
(a) [kugaja] ‘to grind’
(b) [kukaja] ‘to play’
(5)
(a) [kuβika] ‘to put’
(b) [kufika] ‘to reach’
(6)
(a) [kuvula] ‘to undress’
(b) [kusula] ‘to ignore’
(7)
(a) [ɲanga] ‘doctor’
(b) [manga] ‘doctors’
(8)
(a) [kjamba] ‘tower’
(b) [kwamba] ‘to talk’
(9)
(a) [kudula] ‘to be expensive’
(b) [kulula] ‘to be bitter’
In the above examples, all the pairs of words have one difference and are, therefore, minimal
pairs. Using this criterion, consonants in Kaonde will be classified as illustrated in Table 1
above.
1.3.1.2
Kaonde Vowel Phonemes
Vowels are produced by articulatory organs moving without the obstruction or interference
by the vibrating breath stream through the breath channel (Roach 1983). Vowels are
classified according to tongue height which can either be high, mid or low. They are also
classified in terms of tongue advancement - front, central or back.
5
Kaonde has five vowels; /a, e, i, o, u/. Using the criteria above, /i/ will be classified as highfront vowel because in its production the tip of tongue moves in front and it is raised towards
the hard palate. The vowel /u/, in the same vein, is high-back because in its production the
back of the tongue is the highest point. The vowels /e/ is mid-front, /a/ is low-central and /o/
is mid-back using the same criteria. Table 2 shows the phonetic chart for Kaonde vowels.
Table 2: Phonetic Chart of Vowel Phonemes in Kaonde.
High
Front
Back
i
u
Mid
e
Low
o
a
Furthermore, the vowels above can be distinguished as phonemes using a minimal pair test as
shown in the list of minimal pairs below.
(10)
(a) [buka] ‘wake’
(b) [bika] ‘put’
(11)
(a) [mate] ‘saliva’
(b) [mata] ‘guns’
(12)
(a) [kubola] ‘to rot’
(b) [kubila] ‘to neat’
In the examples above, the words are distinguished by the phonemes /u/ and /i/ in (10), /e/
and /a/ in (11), /o/ and /i/ in (12) thus they are distinctive.
1.3.2 Kaonde Syllable Structure
A syllable is a phonological unit comprising a vowel or other unit that can be produced in
isolation, either by one or more sonorous units (Mathews 2005). A syllable typically consists
of a syllable nucleus which is either a vowel or a syllabic consonant, an obligatory constituent
in most languages. The nucleus is usually preceded by a phoneme or phonemes. This
6
phoneme is known as the onset. The nucleus could then be followed by another sound unit
called the coda. The nucleus and the coda are grouped together to form a sub-syllable unit
known as a rhyme. There are two types of syllables: open and closed syllables. Open or free
syllables are those that are coda-less, that is, they end in a vowel. Conversely, closed
syllables are those that have a coda, that is, they end in a consonant. Kaonde belongs to Bantu
languages that have no coda because the syllable structure of Kaonde like other Bantu
languages is basically open.
In phonotactics, the syllable formula is described as follows: a word is made up of a certain
number of syllables whose minimum is one. The syllable structure is:
6 → (On) + Nu + (cd)
For instance, the phrase kwakamwa nanzholo ‘amazed with chicken’ has six syllables where
the word (W) kwakamwa [kwa-ka-mwa] has three syllable [CGVCVNGV] and nanzholo [nanzho-lo] three [NVNCVCV] as show in the tree diagram below:
Figure 1: Syllable Structure of Kwakamwa nazholo ‘amazed with chicken’
As with many other Bantu languages, syllables in Kaonde are characteristically open and are
of eight main types: V, CV, NV, GV, NCV, NGV, CGV and NCGV (where V = vowel (long
or short), C = consonant, N = nasal, G = glide (w or y)) as illustrated in Figure 1 above. Other
types are illustrated by iya [i-ya] [VGV] 'come!', tala [ta-la] [CVCV] 'see!', amba [a-mba]
[VNCV]'speak!' and mpwa [-mpwa] [NCGV] 'eggplants'.
7
Further, in the sentence Inga mpwa? ‘How much are eggplants?’ the word inga has two
syllables which are [i-nga] there by having the structure V and NCV whereas mpwa has one
syllable whose structure is NCGV as can be seen from figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Syllable structure of Inga mpwa? ‘How much are eggplants’
1.3.3 Kaonde Suprasegmental Phonemes
The term suprasegment refers to the prosodic features or diacritic marks that are
superimposed on the segment units of sounds. A suprasegmental phoneme is a vocal effect
that extends over more than one sound (Mathews 2005). The major types of suprasegments
are tone and length in Kaonde.
Tone is a phonetic or phonological unit which belongs to a set primarily distinguished by
changes in pitch in order to distinguish lexical or grammatical meaning in a tonal language. A
tonal language is one in which each syllable is characterised phonologically by a distinct tone
or sequence of tones (Mathews 2005: 379). Kaonde is a tonal language although in most
written texts the tones are not marked. Tone is the unit of pitch and can be used to distinguish
words in Kaonde. Kaonde realizes two basic tones, high (H) and low (L). High tone is
8
marked with an acute accent (ˊ) over tone-bearing elements which are vowels or syllabic
consonants. Low tone is marked with a grave accent (ˋ). For example;
(13)
(a) jὶtὺmbὰ (LLL)‘mailbag
(b) jὶtύmbὰ (LHL)‘molehill’
(c) jίtὺmbὰ (HLL)‘kind of drum’
In the above examples, it can be noted that the three words are distinguished by tone.
Therefore, tone is distinctive in Kaonde.
Further, length is also distinctive in Kaonde, like in most Bantu languages. In suprasegmental
phonology, length is a feature of sounds that are relatively longer than other sounds. There
are long vowels as well as consonants, which are also known as geminates. In Kaonde, length
concerns vowels. Vowel length is the perceived long duration of a vowel. Length in Kaonde
plays a significant role in distinguishing the lexical meaning of some words as can be
exemplified below;
(14)
(a) Kubula [kuβula] ‘to lack’
(b) Kubuula [kuβu:la] ‘ to tell’
(c) Baleeta [βale:ta] ‘they bring’
(d) Baaleeta [βa:le:ta] ‘they have brought’
In example 14, length distinguishes the two words in (a) and (b) and the two sentences in (c)
and (d), therefore, length is distinctive.
1.3.4 The Morphology of Kaonde
This section presents some morphological aspects of Kaonde. The section, like the phonology
one above, is a brief account of Kaonde morphology. Although Kaonde has a number of
word classes such as particles, numerals, demonstratives, pronouns, and prepositions, this
section focuses on the nouns and verbs as they have the most salient elements of Bantu
morphology. Other words that have been discussed are adjectives.
1.3.4.1
The Structure of Nouns in Kaonde
According to Wright (2007: 9) “Most nouns in Kikaonde are made up of a prefix and a stem”
(there are a few which have zero (Ø) prefix such as bokwe ‘lion and kolwe ‘monkey. In the
word form jibwe ‘stone’, mabwe ‘stones, the stem is –bwe and the prefixes are ji-, and ma-.
The prefix ji- shows singularity whereas ma- shows plurality. It can therefore be concluded
9
that the stem –bwe is the main element of the word form from which various other word
forms of the same kind are derived by the process of prefixation. The stem remains constant
and bears the meaning of the word; the prefix can change to show plural or some other
modification of the meaning (ibid). The bi-morphomic structure of nouns in Kaonde can be
formalized as NOUN = PREFIX + STEM. Like in most other Bantu languages nouns is
Kaonde are divided into noun classes based on their prefixes and meaning as discussed
below.
(a)
Noun Class in Kaonde
A noun is a single word that can be basic (a stem alone or with non-derivational affixes:
ng’ombe ‘cow’), derived (containing derivational affixes: mu-jim-i ‘farmer’), or compound
(containing two or more stems: mufunjishi-kata [Lit: teacher-master] ‘headmaster’) which
prototypically refers to a physical object or mass. Languages subcategorize nouns
grammatically along certain semantic parameters. In Bantu languages, nouns are categorized
into a class system based on the prefix they take and also where they will take their singular
and plural form (Wright 2007). They will also be categorised based on semantics. On the
basis of these criteria, Kaonde is said to have 20 noun classes.
As adopted by Carl Meinhoff in his Ur-Bantu, nouns in Kaonde (like in all Bantu languages)
are divided into classes according to their prefix and meaning. This can be tabulated as
indicated in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Nominal Class Prefixes in Kaonde
Class Number
Noun Prefix
Example
Gloss
1
mu-
mu-ntu
person
10
1a
Ø
bokwe
lion
2
ba-
ba-ntu
people
2a
ba
babokwe
lions
3
mu-
mu-chima
heart
4
mi-
mi-chima
hearts
5
ji-
ji-bwe
stone
6
ma-
ma-bwe
stones
7
ki-
ki-ntu
thing
8
bi-
bi-ntu
things
9
n-
n-shima
thick maize meal
porridge
10
n-
n-zhiye
locusts
11
lu-
lu-sekeelo
joy
12
ka-
ka-pasa
axe
13
tu-
tu-pasa
axes
14
bu-
bu-konde
net
15
ku-
ku-twi
ear
16
pa-
pa-ntu
Place on
17
ku-
ku-ntu
Place at
18
mu-
mu-ntu
Place in
It should be noted, however, that although Wright (Wrigth 2007:13) argues that classes 1a
and 2a are sub-classes which have different (or no) prefixes but command the same
agreements in other words” (Wrigth, 2007, p.13), these are in fact not sub-classes and have a
prefix which is zero in class 1a. That is why nouns in class 1a will have a prefix in their
plural form in class 2a. For example, bokwe ‘lion’ will be babokwe ‘lions in its plural form.
In this case, therefore, the prefix ba- is inflected to the root –bokwe because there was a space
for it in d-structure.
From the classes discussed above, it can be noted that most of these can be paired to express
singulars and plurals. This is one very important feature of the semantics of the classes in
11
Bantu languages except for those that cannot be pluralized. The following are the possible
pairs in Kaonde 1/2, 1a/2a, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/6, 12/13, 14/6, 15/6 and 11/4.
These pairs of the noun class system will further express semantic meaning with regard to
nouns that are found within each pair. That is, nouns in the same class will often have
something in common in their meaning. This can further be exemplified in Table 4 which
shows the pairs and their semantic meaning.
Table 4: Pairs of Classes and their Semantic Meaning
Pairs of classes
Semantics of the class
1 and 2
Contains nouns denoting human beings
1a and 2a
Contains names of persons, nouns of
relationship usually expressing respect, that
is, honorific functions as well as personified
objects.
3 and 4
Contains names of trees, natural features,
animals and body parts
5 and 6
Contains peculiar persons due to habits
formed and names of some plants
7 and 8
Nouns designating customs and national
languages. Also designating persons who are
not normal or are notorious.
9 and 6
This will include food stuffs
10 and 1b
Contains big animals and birds
12 and 13
Contains small things which are diminutive
14 and 6
Words denoting abstract qualities of nouns
15 and 6
Parts of the body
Note that because most nouns in class 14 are abstract nouns, they have no plural forms.
Similarly in most cases class 15 is used for infinitives, a category of words which is normally
not subject to the dichotomy singular or plural. Furthermore, classes 16, 17, and 18 are not
paired because they are locatives classes. The nouns in these classes are peculiar in that most
of them are formed from nouns of other classes by preprefixes. For example, the word mumuzhi ‘in the village’ has the preprefix mu- which is locative ‘in’ and the prefix -mu-.
12
1.3.4.2 The Structure of Verbs in Kaonde
Verbs in Kaonde illustrate the typical Bantu language structure of affixes attached to a lexical
core called a radical. According to Lisimba (1982:147), a radical is “the core of the verb
which is responsible for conveying the basic meaning of the verbal unit.” The Kaonde verbal
unit is agglutinative in nature as is the case with other Bantu languages. Agglutination is a
process by which words are easily divided into separate morphemes or segments with
separate grammatical functions (Mathews 2005). In agglutinative languages such as Kaonde,
words are made of different morphemes strung together. The verbal morphology in Kaonde is
built around a root to which affixes can be added to vary meaning. A verb will consist of a
root preceded and/or followed by one or more affixes such as preprefix, prefix, post prefix,
tense marker, extension, pre-ending, ending and post ending in a fixed order (Wright 2007).
The majority of simple roots consist of a consonant plus a long or short vowel plus a
consonant (this can be symbolized CVC) for instance, the verb root jim- [CVC] ‘farm’ which
can have various affixes attached to it as in the word; Ketukamujimina [ketukamuʤimina]
‘we will not cultivate for him/her’
This verbal form consists of the following morphemes;
ke- negative marker
-tu- subject marker
-ka- tense marker
-mu- object marker ‘him/her’
-jim- radical/root ‘farm/cultivate’
-in- applied extension denoting action done for/on behalf of
-a verb ending
From the example above, it can be observed that the nucleus of verbal morphology in Kaonde
is the verb root to which affixes with different grammatical functions are attached. It is also
observed that when a verb appears in a sentence, the root is usually prefixed with a subject or
object marker and tense marker. Having provided an example of a typical verbal form in
Kaonde, we can briefly discuss some verbal extensions’ in Kaonde.
13
(c)
Verbal Extensions
In Kaonde language, a verbal form may show additions of other elements or morphemes to
the root to modify the meaning. These additions are known as verbal extensions (Nkolola
1998). Some of the common verb extensions in Kaonde are as follows:
(i) Applied Extension
The applied extension denotes the meaning of an action being done for or on behalf of
someone or something. The morphemes for the applied extension in Kaonde are –il-, -el- or –
in- as shown in the following words.
(15)
(a) ku-kas-a [kukasa] ‘to tie’
Ka-sh-il-a [ka∫ila] ‘to tie for’ a person or a reason’
(b) ku-sek-a [kuseka] ‘to laugh’
ku- sek-el-a [kusekela] ‘to laugh for’
(c) ku-jim-a [kuʤima] ‘to cultivate’
ku-jim-in-a [kuʤimina] ‘ to cultivate for’
(ii) Causative Extension
This verbal extension modifies a verb to the meaning of causing or making somebody or
something do something or to do something with something. The morpheme for this
extension is –ish-.
(16)
(a) ku-jim-a [kuʤima] ‘to cultivate’
ku-mu-jim-ish-a [kumuʤimi∫a] ‘ to make him/her cultivate’
(b) ku-kas-a [kukasa] ‘to tie’
ku-kas-ish-a [kasi∫a] ‘to cause to tie’
(iii)Passive Extension
14
This extension modifies a verb to the meaning of an action being done to someone or
something. The morpheme for this extension is –u- which undergoes semivocalization or
gliding to become –w- before the final vowel as illustrated below. Semivocalization or
gliding is when morphemes are realized by a corresponding sound after they combined to
form words in certain contexts such as the ones presented 17(a) and (b).
(17)
(a) ku-kas-a [kukasa] ‘to tie’
ku-ka-s-u-a (kukaswa) [kukaswa] ‘to be tied’
(b) ku-pum-a [kupuma] ‘to beat’
ku-pu-m-u-a (kupumwa) [kupumwa] ‘to be beaten’
(iv) Reversive Active Extension
This refers to an action which is reversed or re-done. In this extension, the verb has a
direct object and somebody or something is involved in the reversive action. It is realized
by the morpheme –unun- as in;
(18)
(a) ku-vung-a [kuvunga] ‘to fold’
ku-vung-unun-a [kuvungununa] ‘to unfold something’
(b) ku-kas-a [kukasa] ‘to tie’
ku-kas-unun-a [kukasununa] ‘ to untie something’
(v) Reversive Stative Extension
In this extension, the reversive action denoted by the verb takes place by itself. No one is
involved in the reversive action hence has no direct object. It is realized by the morpheme
–unuk- and –unul- as in;
(19)
(a) ku-kas-a [kukasa] ‘to tie’
ku-kas-unuk-a [kukasunuka] ‘ to become untied’
(b) ku-pomp-a [kupompa] ‘to inflate’
15
ku-pomp-uluk-a [kupompuluka] ‘to become inflated’
(vi) Reciprocal Extension
In this extension, the action denoted by the verb is done to each other. This occurs with
animate objects and subjects. The morpheme for the extension is –an- as in;
(20)
(a) Kw-ichik-a [kwiʧika] ‘to plait’
kw-ichik-an-a [kwiʧikana] ‘to plait each other’
(b) ku-pat-a [kupata] ‘to hate
ku-pat-an-a [kupatana] ‘to hate each other’
(vii)
Repetitive Extension
The verb in this extension denotes an action that is done repeatedly, that is, action is done
over and over again. In this type, the verb root is extended by reduplication.
Reduplication is a morphological process by which the root or stem of a word or part of it
is repeated. For instance, in 21 (a) and (b) below the morphemes -seka and -mona have
been repeated, respectively.
(21)
(a) Kuseka [kuseka] ‘to laugh’
Ku-sek-asek-a [kusekaseka] ‘to laugh repeatedly’
(b) Kumona [kumona] ‘to see’
ku-mon-an-mon-a [kumonamona] ‘to see repeatedly’
1.3.4.3 The Structure of Adjectives
According to Wright (2007:22), “specific adjective stems in the Kaonde language (as in other
Bantu languages) are very few”. This means that they are relatively few adjectives in Kaonde.
According to Mann et. al (1977: 128) the following is believed to be a full list of adjectives: ana ‘young’, -bi ‘bad’, -bishi ‘unripe’, -cheche ‘small’, -enyi ‘strange’, -ine ‘self, -ingi
‘many’, -ipi ‘short’, kaji ‘angry’, katampe ‘big’, kazhi ‘female’, kulumpe ‘elder’, kwabo
‘other, additional’, lume ‘male’ –ncha ‘worthless’, -pya ‘new’, -tanshi ‘first’, -tuntulu
‘whole’ –umi ‘live’, -ya ‘beautiful’, -yampe ‘beautiful’. These stems will take different
16
prefixes according to nouns they modify in order to achieve concord. For instance, the stem –
kwabo ‘other’ will have the prefix mu- in the phrase muntu mukwabo ‘another person’, bi- in
the phrase bintu bikwabo ‘other things’ and ki- in the kintu kikwabo ‘other thing’ in order to
achieve concord as the noun muntu is in class 1, bintu in 8 and kintu in 7.
1.3.5 Some Aspects of the Syntax of Kaonde
This section briefly deals with the basic syntactic structure of Kaonde. According to Heines
and Nurse (1978:194) “in the study of syntax we are concerned with how words and
morphemes combine to form grammatical sentences. We study how they are placed in a
linear order, how they group into larger, patterned units to form phrases and clauses, and how
those units relate to one another to form a hierarchy of structures within structures”.
Languages have a basic word order that serves as the most common way to form a sentence
and express the idea associated with it. Like in other Bantu languages, Kaonde has the
following word order: subject (S), verb (V), object (O); (SVO). This implies that in simple
declarative sentences, the subject (S) will begin the sentence and this will be followed by the
verb (V), which will precede the object (O).
(22) Mushima wapota manyi.
S
V
O
[lit: Mushima-he has-bought relish]
‘Mushima has bought relish.’
(23) Kyembe ne Mushima baji na mali.
S
V
O
[lit: Kyemba and Mushima-they- have-money]
‘Kyembe and Mushima have money.’
The above sentences prove that the basic word order in Kaonde is SVO, however, some
sentences may have different word orders such as VOS, OSV and OVS depending on what is
thematized. That is, these additional word orders are as a result of topicalization.
Topicalization refers to the process of forming a derived construction in which one of the
17
elements is a topic (Mathews 2005). Topicalization involves indicating what the sentence is
about by placing emphasis on a particular section of the sentence. This is illustrated in
example (24) below.
(24) (a) walala windo Mubambe.
V
O
S
[lit: he-has-broken-the-window-Mubambe]
‘The breaking of the window has been done by Mubambe.’
(b). Mubambe walala windo.
S
V
O
[lit: Mubambe-he-has-broken-the-window]
‘Mubambe has broken the window.’
(c). Windo yalajwa ne Mubambe.
O
V
S
[lit: window-it-has-been-broken-by-Mubambe]
‘The window has been broken by Mubambe.’
It can be seen from the above sentences that in 24 (a) what has been topicalized is kulala ‘to
break’, in (b) it is Mubambe and in (c) it is windo ‘the window’.
What we have been discussing above are simple sentences, that is, sentences made up of one
clause. However, sentences may consist of more than one clause and these may be referred to
as compound or complex sentences. Complex sentences involve the linking of two or more
clauses in which one is usually the main clause and the other is the subordinate clause (Heine
and Nurse 1978). Compound sentences, on the other hand, consist of multiple independent
clauses with no dependent clause. To form compound sentences, Kaonde like most Bantu
languages uses coordination and juxtaposition. In Kaonde, compound sentences will be
18
formed by linking two or more clauses by using a coordinating conjunction like ne, na and
kabiji. These coordinating conjunctions can be used to conjoin any given lexical or phrasal
categories.
(25) (a) [Peter waiya] ne [Mukwemba waiya].
[lit: peter-he-has-come and Mukwemba-he-has-come]
‘[Peter has come] and [Mukwemba has come].’
(b). [Bataata basakwiya] nangwa [bamaama basakwiya].
[lit: father-he-will-come-or-mother-she-will-come]
‘[Father will come] or [mother will come].’
(c). [Bamwisho baiya] kabiji [baleeta ne byakuja].
[lit: uncle-he-has-come-and-he-has-brought-with-him-food]
‘[Uncle has come] and [he has brought food].’
Sentences such as the ones in (25) above will be the focus of the analysis in this paper.
1.6 Statement of the Problem
Although it has been established that the syntactic process of coordination is a universal
process and that it differs a lot cross linguistically, no study has been conducted to firstly
examine how it is achieved in Kaonde and; secondly to examine its structure and function. In
as much as coordination in Kaonde has been hinted at in the Zambian Language
Orthography (1977), it is not clear how coordination is structured and how it functions in
Kaonde. This also applies to the nature of and-coordination in Kaonde, that is, its structure
and function. Therefore, how the syntactic process of and-coordination operates in Kaonde is
not extensively documented. In other words, we do not know the structure and function of
and-coordination in Kaonde. Stated as a question, the problem under investigation is: what is
the nature (structure and function) of and-coordination in Kaonde and how is it achieved?
1.7 Rationale
While there is substantial literature on all levels of linguistics in other languages, there is lack
of linguistic research in general and nothing on the topic of coordination in Kaonde (like
most Bantu languages). A number of studies have been conducted on coordination in other
19
languages such as Coordination in Ewe (Dzameshie 1999), Coordinating Construction in
Fongbe (Lebevre 2002) and A Corpus-Based Study of Saisiyat Conjunctor `saa (Wang 2010)
but not in Kaonde. This study was therefore intended to fill this knowledge gap that has not
been given sufficient attention. It was also hoped that once this study was carried out, it
would make a useful contribution to descriptive linguistics in general and literature on the
syntactic description of Kaonde in particular. Further, in light of the literature reviewed, the
study sought to establish whether or not the same principles of the process of andcoordination that apply to other languages will also apply to Kaonde. In addition, it was
hoped that the study would account for the correct distribution of grammatical sentences
which incorporate the coordinating conjunction in Kaonde. This would provide explicit rules
which could assign structural description to coordinating conjunctions so that the wellformedness of a compound sentence or phrase would be determined on the basis of
grammatical description.
1.8 Aim and Objectives of the Study
The aim of the study was to examine the structure and function of the syntactic process of
and-coordination in Kaonde.
To achieve this goal, the study sought to meet the following specific objectives;
(a) To identify coordinators that are equivalent to and in Kaonde.
(b) To identify conjuncts coordinated by and in Kaonde:
(c) To examine how and-equivalent coordinators are used in Kaonde
(d) To examine the nature of coordinate structures in Kaonde using Government and
Binding theory
(e) To examine the semantic functions of coordinators in Kaonde.
1.9 Research Questions
In order to meet the above stated objectives, the following questions were addressed;
(a) What coordinators are equivalent to and in Kaonde?
(b) What conjuncts can be coordinated by and-equivalent in Kaonde?
(c) How are and-equivalent coordinators used in Kaonde?
(d) What is the nature of a coordinate structure in Kaonde in Government and Binding
theory?
(e) What are the semantic functions of coordinators in Kaonde?
20
1.10
Operational Definitions
This study has made reference to some linguistic concepts which, if left undefined, may be
misunderstood or over-applied to areas the study did not intend to stretch into. This section,
therefore, discusses some of the major grammatical concepts investigated in this study.
(a) Coordination: coordination is the relation between two or more separate and
syntactically equivalent parts of a sentence (Mathews 2005). That is, syntactic coordination is
the combining or joining of two or more parts of a sentence (words, phrases or independent
clauses) that are grammatically equal or similar in nature.
(b) Coordinating Conjunction/ Coordinator: A word such as and, or and but which links
syntactic units standing in a relation of coordination.
(c) Conjunct or Coordinard: A word, phrase or clause that is linked to another by a
coordinator in coordination.
(d) Coordinate Structure: A linguistic unit made up of at least two conjuncts that have
been conjoined overtly or non-overtly by a coordinator.
1.11
Methodology
This section discusses the methodology used in this investigation. It also presents a detailed
explanation of the procedures used in data collection and analysis.
1.11.1 Research Design
According to Mungenda & Mungenda (2003), a research design tells the investigator whether
s/he should use the qualitative, quantitative or triangulation method in the process of
research. The method to be employed in research dictates the procedures that will be used
depending on the nature of that particular research. Research that requires the use of statistics
are said to be quantitative, those that are descriptive in nature are said to be qualitative. The
ones that are both descriptive and make use of numbers use triangulation.
This study used qualitative research in the collection and analysis of data because it was not
seeking numerical data which is arrived at by quantitative means. Because this study tried to
describe and investigate the syntax and semantics of and-coordination in Kaonde in some
depths, the researcher used qualitative method “to collect data and explain phenomena more
deeply and exhaustively” (Mungenda & Mungenda 2003: 197). The study sought data based
on people`s own spoken words and written words. Since the primary source of information
21
were people and written texts, the data would have been difficult to divide into parts that
yield characteristics that are measurable (Mungenda & Mungenda 2003). Furthermore, this
study intended to determine what things exist rather than to determine how many there are.
Hence it focused on analysing the nature of the syntactic process of and-coordination in
Kaonde with special interest on what linguistic elements can be coordinated by and, the
nature of coordinators that are equivalent to and in Kaonde and how they function. This is in
line with qualitative research which enables the researcher to meaningfully analyse
information in a systematic way in order to come to some useful conclusion and
recommendation. Here one obtains detailed information about the phenomenon being studied,
and then tries to establish trends, patterns and relationships from the gathered information
(Mungenda and Mungenda 2003).
1.11.2 Data Collection Procedures
In data collection, both primary and secondary data were used to ensure authenticity. Primary
data was collected from both the researcher through introspection (as the researcher is a
native speaker of Kaonde) and ten selected informants. Secondary data was obtained from
some selected Kaonde literature, and these included; Kyapusana, Buku wa Lesa (The Bible),
Kyamba kya Usopa (August and September 2012 articles), and Bishimi Nebyakine. The
data collection exercise was undertaken over a period of four (4) weeks in which the
researcher collected perceived coordinate structures from Kaonde literature. The collected
coordinated phrases and sentences from the above mentioned literature was then administered
to informants for glossing and translation through simple phrase lists. Thereafter, the
coordinate structures were checked by the researcher to ensure clarity.
1.11.3 Sources of Data
This study was mostly corpus-based as most of the data collected was through desk research.
Desk research is the research technique which is mainly acquired by sitting at a desk. It (Desk
research) basically involves collecting data from existing resources. It is very effective and
was conducted in the starting phase of the research as it is quite quick and most basic
information was easily fetched which was used as a benchmark in the research from available
written sources. The researcher unearthed data related to coordination where different
conjunctions and conjuncts were analysed. The University of Zambia library provided the
much needed corpus for the desk research. According to Crystal (1991: 86) “corpus is a
collection of linguistic data, either written text or a transcription of recorded speech, which
can be used as a starting-point of linguistics description.” The corpus used in this study was
22
obtained from the novel Kyapusana, Buku wa Lesa (The Bible), the articles Kyamba kya
Usopa (August and September 2012 articles), and the book of short stories Bishimi
Nebyakine. The novel Kyapusana and the short stories Bishimi Nebwakine were used
because they are among the most popular books in Kaonde. Buku wa Lesa (The Bible) was
selected because it is one of the oldest publications in the Kaonde language. The articles,
Kyamba kya Usopa (August and September 2012 articles), were selected because they are
published on a regular basis and make use of language as it is spoken today.
Data collected from the corpus comprising possible coordinators and coordinate structures in
Kaonde was administered to ten informants for verification in the form of a simple phrase
list. This helped the researcher to come up with properly coordinated sentences in Kaonde.
According to Vaux and Cooper (1997), field work can be extremely rewarding if one selects
the right informants and equally painful if one selects the wrong informants. One should try
to find a fluent speaker of the language being studied. Therefore, the researcher purposefully
selected informants that were native speakers of Kaonde and also secondary school teachers
of Kaonde. Five male and female teachers of Kaonde language were selected in order to
strike a balance in terms of gender. These are people who have been teaching the standard
Kaonde language for at least thirteen years, and have a good understanding of the structure of
Kaonde. Additionally, the five Kaonde texts and ten informants that were selected for data
collection were sufficient for the study because it was easy to work with few people and
items. This is in line with Vaux and Cooper (1997: 8) who claims that “if one works with few
informants, one obtains relatively consistent data, whereas when working with more
informants, differences in idiolect, dialect, and so on inevitably appear.”
The study also employed introspection in data collection as the researcher is a native speaker
of the language in question. The significance of this technique is that the researcher was
aware of coordinate structures in Kaonde. He came up with a number of coordinate structures
that are coordinated by an and-equivalent in Kaonde. Because he is a native speaker of
Kaonde, it was hoped that his judgement of the acceptability, grammaticality and other
properties of sentences against his intuition were accurate. This is in line with Chomsky
(2005) who stipulates that the native speaker’s intuition cannot be undermined. Furthermore,
according to Asher (1994) introspective reports and linguistic intuition have a special status
in linguistics (particularly generative linguistics) because they are regarded as reflections of
the native speaker’s internalised mental grammar and are therefore used as primary data for
23
theory construction. It is undeniable that such use of linguistic intuition has led to the
establishment of a substantial number of significant generalizations about syntactic processes
of and-coordination.
1.11.4 Data Analysis
The data analysis process started during data collection by first identifying coordinators and
coordinate structures. According to Kombo and Tromp (2006: 119), “qualitative data can be
analysed using the Thematic Analytic Technique.” They stress that this technique enables the
researcher to analyse data according to themes or categories. Therefore, the researcher began
by identifying and categorizing coordinators and coordinate structures by putting them in
thematic categories – lexical categories, phrasal categories and clausal categories. That is,
after collecting data, the researcher first examined it critically and put it into different
categories depending on whether or not it was relevant. Kaonde informants were consulted
when conducting this exercise as it was crucial in coming up with valid data.
The relevant data was then put in different thematic categories depending on their type. That
is, coordinate structures were categorized into nouns and noun phrases, verbs and verb
phrases, adjectives and adjective phrases, prepositions and prepositional phrases, clauses,
sentences and unlike coordinate structures. Thereafter, the researcher discussed their
structure. The researcher examined the structural make up of coordinate structures by
establishing their salient linguistic features. In so doing, the researcher established Kaonde
coordinators and conjuncts.
Furthermore, the researcher examined the function of coordinators and how they operate to
achieve coordination in Kaonde. The researcher also subjected and- coordination in Kaonde
to Government and Binding (GB) theory. He evaluated whether or not coordinate structures
in Kaonde could be analysed using the X-bar theory of GB by Chomsky (1981).
1.12
Scope of the Study
Coordination is used by linguists as a term for both conjunction (with and and but ) and
disjunction (with or). However, this study limited itself to the investigation of andcoordination in Kaonde. Therefore, the focus was to examine the nature of coordinate
structures that use and in Kaonde and describe in a precise manner how they operate. It
should be mentioned here that Kaonde has a number of dialects as stated earlier but in this
particular study standard Kaonde from Kasempa is what was considered. This is because
standard Kaonde is the one that is officially used in government schools where the Kaonde
24
language is taught. Further, the study also looked at some constraints that disallow the
possibilities of using and following the concepts of Government and Binding (GB) theory.
Because GB theory was developed for English, the study further sought to establish whether
the same principles would apply to Kaonde.
1.13
Limitations of the Study
One of the major limitations of this study is that it did not look at coordination in Kaonde in
general; instead, it focused on and-coordination. This was so because there was not enough
time to cover for all kinds of coordination. The other limitation of this study is that it did not
consider all the three major Kaonde dialects when investigating and-coordination. It focused
on the Kasempa dialect (the standard dialect) which is taught in schools and used on radio
and television as a means of official communication. This is the case because the Kasempa
dialect is the one which is well documented and approved by the government of the Republic
of Zambia as it is used as one of the seven languages or language clusters that are used in
Zambia besides English for official purposes such as broadcasting (both on radio and
television), literacy campaigns and the official dissemination of information. Furthermore,
this study did not categorically look at coordinate structure constraints in Kaonde.
1.14
Ethical Considerations
Due to the nature of the study (desk research), no major ethical considerations were necessary
for this study and it was believed that the study could not harm anyone. Most of the data was
collected from published books which are meant for public consumption. The only ethical
consideration considered was the confidentiality and voluntary participation of the
informants. In this regard, the names of the informants have not been revealed and their
participation in this research was voluntary.
1.15
Structure of the Dissertation
This dissertation is composed of five chapters. The present chapter provides an introduction
to the study and gives background information to the study. It states the specific problem
under investigation and gives the rationale of this study. The purpose and objectives of the
study, the research questions which were investigated as well as a summary of the
methodology employed in data collection and analysis, have been presented in this chapter.
Additionally, the chapter gives the details of the methodology used to collect data in order to
provide answers to the research questions raised. It also presents details on the type of
research design, data analysis, scope and limitations of the study.
25
The second chapter reviews literature which is available and directly relevant to the current
study so as to put this research within the context of other similar studies and provide
justification for it. The third chapter presents the theoretical framework within which the
study was carried out by explaining and illustrating some important concepts of government
binding theory that relate to the research.
The fourth chapter is an analysis of findings on the nature of and-coordination as it operates
in Kaonde from the data collected. It discusses the findings by establishing; (a) the nature of
and-coordination as syntactic phenomenon in Kaonde, (b) the nature of conjunctions and
how they are realized in Kaonde, (c) the structure of conjuncts in Kaonde, and (d) the
function of coordinators and the role the conjunctions play in achieving coordination. The
fifth and last chapter gives a summary of the previous chapters and concludes by establishing
the nature of coordination in Kaonde. It further makes some recommendations for further
research.
1.16
Conclusion
This chapter provided the background and motivation for the study. It also briefly looked at
the structure of the Kaonde language. The presentation started with information on
coordination in general and looked at the phonological, morphological and syntactic structure
of Kaonde. Later, the chapter presented the problem under research, the rationale, the purpose
and objectives of the study. It discussed the research design employed in this research. That
is, it states in a precise manner with respect to how data was collected and analysed. The
chapter concluded by presenting the scope of the study, outlining some of the limitations and
giving the structure of the dissertation.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0
Introduction
This chapter presents information on coordination conducted on other languages and provides
the context for the study. It reviews critical literature on substantive findings as well as
theoretical and methodological contributions to coordination. It begins by providing an
26
overview of coordination as a syntactic process in linguistics and thereafter looks at some of
the studies that have been done on Kaonde and similar ones conducted on the topic of
coordination in other languages. Since coordination has not been extensively and intensively
studied in Kaonde most of the works that have been reviewed are based on English and other
languages.
2.1 Coordination
According to Haspelmath (2000: 1), “the term coordination refers to syntactic constructions
in which two or more units of the same type are combined into a larger unit and still have the
same semantic relations with other surrounding elements.” Haspelmath (2000) further argues
that the units maybe words, phrases, subordinate clauses, or full sentences. That is, these
units may be complete sentences, phrase-level constituents or single words. That is, it is a
construction in which two or more parts of the sentence are joined by words like and or or as
can be seen from the examples below;
(1) (a) [John] ne [Mary] baile nakukaya.
[Lit: John and Mary they have gone to play]
‘[John] and [Mary] have gone to play’
(b) Bansongwalume [bafunda kuluka mape] ne [kutunga mazuba].
[Lit: boys they learn how to make baskets and to build houses]
‘Boys [learn how to make baskets] and [build houses]’
In 1 (a), what have been conjoined are two single nouns (John and Mary) whereas in 1 (b) the
VPs (bafunda kuluka mape and kutunga mazubo) have been conjoined to form one larger VP.
This is an instance where single words and phrase-level constituents have been conjoined by
ne to form a coordinate structure, respectively.
Coordination can also be between and among sentences since it essentially reduces sentences
so as to avoid repetition of constituents of the same phrasal structure as can be seen in the
following examples;
(2) (a) Yobe ng’anyi kabiji wikala kwepi?
[Lit: you are who and you live where]
‘[Who are you] and [where do you live]?
(b) [waesekele] ne [kukankalwa].
27
[Lit: s/he tried and failed]
‘[s/he tried] and [failed].
According to Asher (1994), coordination therefore has two major approaches; phrasal
conjunction, where coordinate structures are base-generated as in 1 above (where conjuncts
are lexical categories and phrasal categories) and sentential conjunction which deals with the
reduction of constituents as in 2 above. According to Bright (1992: 311) “These approaches
render the process of coordination to be a very flexible mechanism in languages in that any
given lexical or phrasal categories can be coordinated. The focus on sentential conjunction is
from a view that only sentences are conjoined in the underlying structure.” It is therefore
through the process of conjunction reduction that the surface structures of the sentences are
produced. Thus, the process is also referred to as a conjunction. For instance, sentences 3 (a)
and (b) can be reduced to 3 (c) as shown below.
(3) (a) Carol waya kukisankanyi.
[Lit: carol she has gone to the market]
‘Carol has gone to the market.’
(b) Tasila waya kukisankanyi.
[Lit: Tasila she has gone to the market]
‘Tasila has gone to the market’
(c) [Carol] ne [tasila] baya kukisankanyi.
[Lit: Carol and Tasila they have gone to the market]
‘[Carol] and [Tasila] have gone to the market.’
All languages have a way of expressing coordination but some languages of the world do not
use coordinate structures. For example, according to Heine and Nurse (1978: 218) “Nawdm
uses juxtaposition for contrast as in ‘but’. The first clause has an affirmative adverb such as
‘certainly, truly’, with no other special indicators in the rest of the sentence. So one could
say: He went to the market for certain, he did not buy yams’ to mean ‘He went to the market
but did not buy yams.’” Languages that use coordination are those that formally indicate the
linkage between two clauses by using a coordinating word such as and or or for English.
28
2.2 Types of Coordination
In coordination, the coordinator usually serves to link the conjuncts and indicate the presence
of a coordinate structure. Depending on the number of coordinators used, coordinate
structures can be classified as syndetic, asyndetic or polysyndetic (Dayley 1989).
2.2.1 Syndetic Coordination
According to Dayley (1989) syndetic coordination is one which is marked by overt signals of
coordination such as and. For example in sentence (4) below, the coordinate structure is
syndetic as there is the use of and to link the two nouns (‘Tukiya’ and ‘Bibusa’).
(4) Tukiya and Bibusa are good girls.
All the constructions in this study where the coordinator ‘and’ has been used involve syndetic
coordination.
2.2.2 Asyndetic Coordination
Asyndetic coordination is one that is not overtly marked by coordinators such as the ones
mentioned above (Dayley 1989). For instance in (5) below, no coordinator has been used to
link the three nouns (‘camp chairs’, ‘ropes’ and ‘sleeping bags’, ) together.
(5) I bought camp chairs, ropes, sleeping bags – everything needed for a picnic.
In asyndetic coordination, coordinators are not visibly used. It is a process in which
constituents are conjoined without the use of coordinating conjunctions. Most asyndetic
constructions in African languages use the subjunctive in the verb form of the conjoined
constituents. The subjunctive is a verb mood that is used to express an action or state of being
in the context of the speaker`s reaction to it. It is used to express necessity, desire, purpose
suggestion and similar ideas, or counterfactual condition as shown in (6) below (Mathews
2005).
(6) (a) Nsakukumba nshima nje.
[Lit: I will cook nshima I eat]
‘I will cook nshima and eat’.
(b) Nsakutola byoonse, njenga kwetu.
29
[Lit: I will pick everything I go home]
‘I will pick everything and go home’.
Note that, not all juxtaposed words, phrases or clauses are manifestations of asyndetic
coordination. The possibility of inserting the coordinator and with little alteration of the
meaning is evidence that a construction is one of asyndetic coordination. In this kind of
coordination, conjoins are generally separated by a tone-unit boundary in speech, or
punctuation mark in writing. For example, (5) above can be rewritten as show in (7);
(7) I bought camp chairs, ropes and sleeping bags.
2.2.3 Polysyndetic Coordination
According to Coghill (1997) when a coordinating conjunction connects more than two (2)
items, the coordinating conjunction usually appears between the last two items in a series.
Commas separate the other items in that series as exemplified in (8) below.
(8) Our corporate social responsibility is holistic with a focus on [sustainable livelihoods],
[sport sponsorship], [the environment], [education] and [health].
However, there are instances in which a coordinating conjunction can be used more than once
when connecting more than two items. This kind of coordination is known as polysyndetic
coordination. That is, when a construction with and has more than two conjoins. According
to Halliday (2004), Polysyndeton occurs where more than one conjunction is, and maybe
included for emphasis. Therefore, you generally use a comma before the coordinating
conjunction if you are connecting three (3) or more items in a series, that is;
Item, + item, + item, + and (coordinating conjunction) + item (Halliday 2004).
(9) [The wind roared] and [the lightning flashed] and [the sky was suddenly as dark as
night].
In this instance, polysyndeton which tends to be reserved for stylistically marked effect is
used to emphasise a dramatic sequence of events.
2.3 Types of Coordinators
A coordinator or coordinating conjunction is a word (such as and, but or or) that joins parts
of a sentence that are grammatically equal or similar. And and or coordination are by far the
most frequently occurring coordination. Other types of coordination occur less often and have
30
unique properties and these involve these words; but, as well as, and then among others
(Quirk & Greenbaum 1973). For example;
(10) (a) [The Ghanaian boxer was old] but [he was easily beaten].
(b) Peter is [tall] as well as [huge].
(c) [They went home], then [went straight to bed].
This study specifically investigates coordination that involves a coordinator that is equivalent
to and in Kaonde. That is, coordination which involves the use of and-equivalent as a
coordinator in Kaonde, hence, and-coordination.
2.4 And–Coordination
And-coordination is a process of using ‘and’ in conjoining or coordinating elements of a
language that are of equal status, although this equality is not in totality as exemplified in
(11) below where two adjectives and a clause have been conjoined by ‘and’.
(11) Belgians are [pragmatic] and [friendly] and [they certainly know how to throw a party].
(A + A + Clause constituent)
Thomson and Martnet (1986: 288) say that a coordinating conjunction “joins pairs of nouns,
adjectives, adverbs, phrases or clauses,” where the term conjunction here refers to the
element that is used to conjoin other constituents. These constituents however may be more
than two, like what is shown in (11) above. The equivalents of ‘and’ are the most frequently
used of the coordinators in any of the world’s languages. Languages frequently use ‘and’ to
link conjuncts. This coordinator often appears between the conjuncts, usually between the
penultimate and the ultimate conjunct of the coordinate structure when items being
coordinated are more than two as exemplified in the English example below;
(12) Mubambe sells [cars], [houses], [farms] and [farm produce].
2.5 Forms of And-Coordination
And - coordination can either be combinatory or segregatory. When a phrase is linked by and
in a clause, they may express combinatory or segregatory meaning. The distinction applies to
various types of co-joined phrases, but perhaps clearest to noun phrases (NP).
31
2.5.1 Combinatory Coordination
According to Quick & Greenbaum (1973), combinatory coordination is a kind of
coordination where the proposition in the first clause is inseparable from that in the second. It
can work with various types of conjoined phrases and this kind is analysed by its inability to
be separated as two or more sentences as shown below;
(13)
[John] and [Mary] make a pleasant couple.
Hence the following sentence is ungrammatical;
(14)
*[John makes a pleasant couple] and [Mary makes a pleasant couple].
2.5.2 Segregtory Coordination
Segregatory coordination, on the other hand, is a type of coordination where the conjoined
clauses or sentences can be split into sentences of the underlying structures. When the
coordination is segregatory, it is possible to paraphrase the original sentence into two or more
uncoordinated clauses (Quirck and Greenbaum 1973). For example;
(15) [Muke] and [Mushima] have a cold.
Is equivalent to;
(16) [Muke has a cold] and [Mushima has a cold].
2.6 The Structure of And – Coordination
Coordination always has at least two conjuncts. For example, in (17) below, the two NPs
John and his mother have been conjoined by the coordinating conjunction and to form a
conjunction.
(17) [John] and [his mother] took a stroll along the embankment.
The usual analysis for and-coordinate structure is to posit a rule schema of the form;
α → α and α
Choosing some value for α (such as NP, A or Det) gives us a particular coordinate rule with
conjuncts of the same category (Bright 1992: 311).
2.7 Studies on Coordination
A number of studies have been conducted on some Zambian languages. These include Miti
(1988), Nkolola (1997) and Lisimba (1982). Miti (1988) examines the language varieties of
32
Chinyanja. He addresses tonal variation among the three varieties (Chichewa, Chinsenga and
Chingoni) using autosegmental phonology. Nkolola (1997) presents an analysis of the
morphophonology, syntax and semantics of the applied, causative and passive verb extension
of Tonga. She employs GB in the syntax and semantic analysis of verb extension whereas the
phonological analysis is done using Underspecification Theory and Feature Geometry.
Further, Lisimba (1982) looks at the dialectological variations of Luyana languages with
respect to their morphology, phonemics, lexicon, grammar and tone. The study was designed
not only to interrelate Luyi languages but also to establish their positions as a group within
Bantu relative. Although the above reviewed studies have made great contribution to the
development of Zambian languages, none of them has analysed the syntax and semantics of
and-coordination in Kaonde.
A lot of studies have been conducted on coordination in syntax (Dzameshie 2012; Nguyeni
2004; Zhang 2000, and Drellishak 2004). These have addressed a number of major issues
with regard to the treatment of coordination as a phenomenon including its structure and
functions in many languages. However, no study has been conducted in the Kaonde language
or indeed in any other Zambia language to see how lexical categories, phrasal categories and
clauses, as well as, sentences operate to achieve coordination. Moreover, few studies have
been undertaken in Kaonde at all levels of linguistic analysis. These include; Mambwe
(2008), Broughall (1924), Wright and Kashoki (1977) and Ministry of Education (1977).
Mambwe (2008) conducted a dialectological study of the Kaonde dialects of Mumbwa,
Solwezi- Lubango of Chief Mukumbi and standard Kaonde of Kasempa. He established the
variations in these dialects in terms of morphology, syntax, phonology and the lexical
parameters. This study, however, only discussed the dialectal variations and did not look at
coordination and its functions as a linguistic connection that cuts across languages, Kaonde
inclusive. Another publication in Kaonde is the first bilingual English-Kaonde dictionary
written by Broughall (1924). This is an introductory dictionary of the Kaonde language with
English glosses. Basically, it just presents some Kaonde words which are glossed in English.
Inasmuch as it was helpful in translation of some collected data, it was of little relevance to
this study. Wright`s (2007) Kiikaonde Grammar as his earlier work which he co-authored
with Mann and Kashoki (1977) is a handbook for pedagogical purposes and is used as a
reference grammar of Kaonde. It discusses, among other things, the phonology, verb
extensions and class system in Kaonde. For instance, it states that Kaonde has about eighteen
noun classes which are paired in class genders. The following are the pairs in Kaonde 1/2,
33
1a/2a, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/6, 12/13, 14/6, 15/6. A few will belong to the pair 11/4. These pairs will
further express semantic meaning with regard to nouns that are found within each pair. That
is, nouns in the same class will often have something in common in their meaning as
discussed in chapter one of this study.
In the Zambian Languages Orthography (1977) conjunction in Kaonde is addressed. In this
book, the variants of and-equivalent are briefly discussed, and these include; [ne] and
[kabiji]. It also looks at how conjunction is achieved as well as how [ne] is used as a variant
of and-equivalent in English. It states that the conjunction [ne] is regarded syntactically and
phonologically as part of the words following it. The work suggests that it should be joined to
common nouns but not to proper nouns. For instance, the conjunction [ne] will be part of
common nouns as shown below;
Common Nouns
(18)
(a) Bataata nebamaama
[Lit: father and-mother]
‘Father and mother’
(b) Kumuzhi nekunzubo
[Lit: to village and to house]
‘To the village and the house’
Proper Nouns
For proper nouns, the conjunction [ne] will be a separate word as shown below (ibid).
(19) (a) [Kasempa] ne [Solwezi].
[Lit: Kasempa and Solwezi]
‘[Kasempa] and [Solwezi]’
(b) [Mushima] ne [Tukiya].
[Lit: Mushima and Tukiya]
‘[Mushima] and [Tukiya]’
(c). Bakwa [Kizela] ne [baku Kyafukuma].
[Lit: those from kizela and those to kyakufuma]
34
‘Those from [Kizela] and [Kyafukuma]’
It further makes a distinction between ne and kabiji. Kabiji plays a special function in Kaonde
coordination and therefore, not joined to common or proper nouns. For instance;
(20)
(a) [Mukeye keesha] kabiji [nepakina].
[Lit: you come tomorrow and also on Thursday]
‘Come tomorrow and also on Thursday’
(b) [Mooba amo mwela upita pacheche] kabiji [mooba akwabo upichisha].
[Lit: days others wind blows a bit and days others it blows much]
‘[Some days the wind blows a bit] and [other days it blows too much]’
What is presented in the Zambian Languages Orthography is a brief outline of conjunction
in Kaonde without analysing its nature in detail or discussing how it is achieved. It is clear
that although a number of studies and research have been carried out on Zambian languages,
no study has been carried out to analyse the syntax and semantics of and-coordination in
these languages. Further, little has been undertaken to look fully on what constitutes
coordinating conjunction in Kaonde. Because of this, it is clear that a knowledge gap exists in
this language with regard to the syntax and semantic of and-coordination.
There are studies that have been conducted on coordination in other languages. Drellishak
(2004) conducted a research project on coordination strategies in the world’s languages. It
was inspired by the observation that Japanese does not have a single, general-purpose word
for and. Instead, in situations where an English sentence would have and, Japanese has a
number of different structures, each of which is used with a particular subset of phrase types.
Drellishak (2004) analyses coordination in a number of languages some of which include;
Ewe (Niger-Kordofanain), Abelam (Sepik-Ramu), Cambodian (Austro Asiatic) and Slave
(Na-Dene).
Furthermore, his survey on coordination strategies was based on the surveys by Stassen
(2001) and Payne (1985). In these surveys, it was observed that language users express
coordinated meanings using different coordinate constructions. Whatever construction they
use in such situations is a coordination strategy. It may not be syntactic coordination.
Stassen’s (2001) survey as quoted by Drellishak (2004) found two major strategies and
35
several minor strategies for and-coordination. He refers to the first of the two major strategies
as the Coordinate Strategy, and to languages that use it as AND-languages. This is the
strategy that includes the familiar English conjunction and and its cognates in other IndoEuropean languages as well as Bantu languages, Kaonde inclusive. These languages have an
AND-strategy: a coordinator that can combine items of all (or nearly all) categories into
larger phrases of the same category.
Other languages lack an AND-strategy, instead they use a construction with comitative
meaning (“with”). Drellishak (2004) refers to the other major strategy as the Comitative
Strategy, and to languages that use it as WITH-languages. Unlike the Coordinate Strategy, it
is not possible to define a subset of languages that use the Comitative Strategy, because “with
only a few exceptions, all languages in the sample appear to have the possibility of
employing the Comitative Strategy” (Drellishak 2004: 21). Because of this, Drellishak (2004)
defines WITH-languages as those that have no other way to coordinate NPs. For instance,
Abun (West Papuan) has an and strategy in which both coordinands are marked by postfix
‘e’.
(21)
[Mbos] e [ndabu] e [ndam] gas ye ne e an fowa sino.
[lit: Pigeon and dove and bird REL big DET and 3PL forbidden all]
‘[Pigeons], [doves] and [birds] that are big, they are all forbidden (for women to eat).’
(Source: Berry and Berry 1999: 96)
Alawa (Australian) has no conjunction corresponding to the English ‘and’; simple
juxtaposition of noun phrases, clauses, or sentences, with certain concomitant intonation
patterns, signals conjunction of the type signalled by ‘and’ in English” (Sharpe 1972:118).
Because Kaonde uses coordinate strategy, it has coordinators that correspond to ‘and’ in
English, and is therefore an And-language.
Dzameshie (1999: 71) “examines coordination in Ewe, looking at various aspects of this
syntactic phenomenon, including: (1) overt and covert coordination, (2) phrasal and clausal
coordination, (3) the interface between coordination and compression rules, and (4)
constraints on coordination.” The article essentially highlights the salient syntactic features of
Ewe coordinate structures including structural types, devices for achieving syntactic/verbal
compactness, and certain syntactic constraints on coordination. For instance, he argues that in
structures of coordination the conjuncts are typically joined by means of conjunctions and
36
that the constituents of coordinate structures may be either part of sentences or clauses.
Consider the following examples:
(22) (a) [The manager] and [I]made the choice.
(b) [The team played very well], and [their coach was very impressed].
In 22 (a) the conjuncts are parts of the sentence (NPs) while in 23 (b) the conjuncts are
clauses which are co-joined by the conjunction ‘and’. Dzameshie (1999) further observes that
conjuncts in a coordinated structure may appear in either their full forms or shortened
version. The production of the shorter forms may be explained in terms of conjunction
reduction, gapping, reciprocation, and anaphoric substitution. Example 23 (b), for instance, is
a compact version of 23 (a), produced through the rule of conjunction reduction which
deletes the second of any two identical elements that are found in parallel structures.
(23)
(a) [Jean plays well], and [Tony plays well].
(b) [Jean] and [Tony] play well.
The italicised clauses in 23 (a), for example, are parallel and so the rule deletes the second
occurrence of the identical element plays well, thus yielding 23 (b).
The reciprocal formation rule introduces ‘each other’ into the coordinate structure in English
as a device for achieving syntactic compactness as in 24 (a) and (b).
(24) (a) [Muke loves Sibeso], and [Sibeso loves Muke].
(b) [Muke] and [Sibeso] love each other.
Dzameshie (1999) also makes two important observations in Ewe coordination. Firstly, only
sequences that are legitimate constituents can be conjoined, and secondly, in ordinary or
simple coordination, only sequences belonging to identical categories can be conjoined. A
related property is that the category type of the resultant coordinate structure produced is
identical to the category of the conjuncts as can be seen from 25 (a) and (b) below.
(25) (a) He [loves] and [cherishes] her.
(b) Muke is [handsome] and [smart].
(c) [The bus driver] and [his father fought].
(d) [Peter is a millionaire] and [Ben is a millionaire].
37
In 25 (a), (b), (c) and (d) the conjuncts are verbs, adjectives, noun phrases and clauses,
respectively.
Stockwell (1977) discusses other devices for achieving syntactic compactness. These are
gapping and anaphoric substitution. Gapping is a special kind of conjunction reduction which
limits itself to the deletion of identical verbs found in parallel structures as in 26 (a) and (b).
(26) (a) [Peter likes mangoes] and [Mwango likes apples].
(b) [Peter likes mangoes] and [Mwango apples].
The italicised verbs in 26 (a), are parallel and so the rule deletes the second occurrence of the
identical verb ‘like’, thus providing 26 (b). Anaphoric substitution rule, on the other hand,
achieves structure compression by replacing a longer phrase with only parts of the phrase or
even with a single word (e.g. a pronoun).
(27)
(a) [Peter likes mangoes] and [Mwango like apples].
(b) They like [mangoes] and [apples].
In the same vein, Nguyeni (2004) attempted to compare the phenomenon of coordination in
English and African languages. He carried out a contrastive research on and-Coordination in
Swahili and English. In this study comparisons were made between the coordinating
conjunction AND (English) and NA (Swahili) in terms of what they coordinate and how they
coordinate. It was observed that since coordination is somehow language specific, it is not
easy to coordinate syntactic elements in Bantu languages as in these languages coordination
is highly complex as opposed to English. Nguyeni (2004) argues that in English, andcoordination is a straight forward kind of coordination as opposed to Swahili which has only
one coordinating conjunction (NA) which joins or links various elements of equal rank.
Notable among his finding is that in Swahili (like most Bantu languages) and – coordination
differs in English and Bantu in terms of usage. When a coordinating conjunction connects
more than two (2) items in English, the coordinating conjunction usually appears between the
last two items in a series. Commas separate the other items in that series as exemplified in 28
below (Coghill 1997).
(28) You will need [a pair of scissors], [glue], [green felt] and [silk flowers].
Thus the following sentence is not desirable in English;
38
(29) *You will need [a pair of scissors] and [glue] and [green felt] and [silk flowers].
However, the opposite is true of Swahili. For example, when connecting a series of items one
uses a coordinator na after each item.
(30) Miri wazuka [kuku] na [malaki] na [samaki] na [nyama].
[Lit: I i-have-bought chicken and beans and fish and meat]
‘I have bought [chicken] and [beans] and [fish] and [meat]’
This kind of coordination is known as polysyndetic coordination. That is, when a
construction with and has more than two conjoins. In English, nonetheless, polysyndeton can
occur where more than one conjunction maybe included for emphasis otherwise it is
ungrammatical.
(31) The wind roared and the lightning flashed and the sky was suddenly as dark as night.
In this instance, polysyndeton which tends to be reserved for stylistically marked effect is
used to emphasise a dramatic sequence of events. Therefore, according to Halliday (2004),
you generally use a comma before the coordinating conjunction in English if you are
connecting three (3) or more items in a series, that is:
Item, + item, + item, + and (coordinating conjunction) + item.
This study is important as it establishes how coordination operates in Bantu languages,
including Kaonde.
Additionally, Bluhdorn (2007) discusses the question whether the distinction between
subordination and coordination is parallel in syntax or discourse. The main focus of the thesis
is that subordination and coordination as they are commonly understood in the linguistic
literature are genuinely syntactic concepts. Bluhdorn (2007: 1) states that “the syntax and
semantics of connections (as the most prominent morphsyntactic means by which
subordination and coordination are encoded), offer little evidence to support the assumption
of a parallel structural parallelism between syntax and discourse. As a methodology of
consequence, sentences and discourse structures should not be mixed up in linguistic
analysis. This thesis, however, only discusses the assumption that there is a distinction
between subordination and coordination”.
It further, states that the distinction between
hierarchical and non-hierarchical connection in discourse structures is of a different nature.
39
Another study that is of paramount importance in respect to coordination is the one done by
Zhang (2009). In the book entitled Coordination in Syntax what is addressed are the issues
raised by coordinate pairings and implications of these structures, looking at examples within
English and Chinese. The volume covers the major questions regarding coordinates in syntax,
providing a fresh perspective to arguments raised within previous literatures. Among the
questions raised are the following;
a. Does the derivation of coordinate constructions create any special syntactic
configuration, other than the general binary complementation and adjunction
configuration?
b. Does the derivation of coordinate constructions resort to any special syntactic
category, other than NP, VP, and so on?
c. Is the derivation of coordinate constructions subject to any special constraint on
syntactic operations, other than general conditions such as the Minimal Link
Condition?
d. Does the derivation of coordinate constructions require any special type of
syntactic operations, other than Merge and the step-by-step, one-tail-one-head
chains of Move? (Zhang 2009: 1)
She explains how some coordinate complexes are structured, how some coordinators can be
combined in parts of speech, the fixed nature of some of these pairings and what changes
exist between the coordinate and non-coordinate constructions. The questions raised are
backed up by a rich variety of examples as well as providing a cross-linguistic perspective
contextualizing these ideas within current syntactic research. Some of the features that she
discusses which are vitally important are that she uses cross-linguistic evidence and examples
to theorize her findings. This is evident in the fact that she compares coordination in English
and Chinese.
However, this study did not seek to address the differences that may exist or indeed consider
the similarities that characterize the structure and forms of connectors that account for
coordination in different languages. It did not establish the extent to which coordination as a
linguistic phenomenon resembles or differs across different languages of the world.
Therefore, there is need to carry out an investigation that will characterize in a precise
manner the principles that govern coordination in Kaonde.
40
Another notable study on coordination is one conducted by Mitrovic (2011). In this study,
Mitrovic (2011) looked at the syntax of coordination in Sanskrit. The study provides a
syntactic account of coordination in Sanskrit within Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetric theory
and Chomsky’s (1995) minimalist programme. The study provides a syntactic analysis of
differential coordinate configurations in Sanskrit and analyses diachronically the
development and loss of the double system of coordination. However, this does not establish
the similarities and differences that may exist between and among different languages.
Furthermore, De vos (2005) conducted a study which explored verbal pseudo-coordinative
structures in English and Afrikaans. In this dissertation, De vos (2005) argues that the
properties of these constructions are derived from the status of the linking elements as a true
coordinator subject to the coordinate structure constraints (CSC) and the Law of Coordinates
of Likes (LCL) and the specific kind of syntactic context into which the coordinators are
merged. One of the most salient properties in pseudo-coordinative constructions is that the
coordinator appears to have a subordinating function. It occurs in many languages and is
sometimes known as "hendiadys", and it is often, but not always, used to convey a pejorative
or idiomatic connotation. The pseudo-coordinative construction is limited to a few verbs. In
most languages, typical pseudo-coordinative verbs and/or hendiadys predicates are egressive
verbs such as go, went and come.
(32)
(a) John [went] and [read] a book on the bus.
(b) What did John [go] and [read] on the bus?
(c) Who [went] and [read] a book on the bus?
Nevertheless, the scope of this study was limited to pseudo-coordination and did not carter
for coordination in general hence the need to investigate coordination in a broader sense.
De vos (2009) also conducted a study on argument for VP coordination dealing with scenesetting and weak islands. The discussion of verbal coordination is made quite intricate by
virtue of the fact that there are a number of different constructions that appear to coordinate
verbal categories, although arguably not all of them do. For instance;
(33)
(a) [John went to town] and [he bought a cake]. [Ordinary Coordination] (OCo)
(b) John [went to town] and [bought a cake]. [Scene-setting coordination] (SceCo)
(c) John [went] and [bought] a cake [Contiguous Coordination] (ConCo),
41
Example 33 (a) is a case of ordinary coordination (OCo), arguably coordinating IPs as the
presence of an embedded subject shows. The events referred to in each conjunct are distinct
from each other. The temporal ordering of the conjuncts is not necessarily reflected in the
word order of the conjuncts. Examples 33 (b) and (c) are instances of asymmetric
coordination, also known generally as pseudo-coordination or subordinating coordination.
Although these are almost always treated as a single construction in the existing literature, De
vos (2009) argues that they instantiate two different types of pseudo-coordination. The
pseudo-coordination illustrated in 33 (b) exemplifies scene-setting coordination (SceCo),
where the predicate in the first conjunct seems to set the scene for the action denoted by the
verb in the second conjunct to take place. The conjuncts are intrinsically temporally ordered
and always occur in a temporally dependent sequence. In addition, SceCo can be
descriptively characterised as allowing a PP or particle within the verbal string in the first
conjunct. This is an important distinguishing factor for SceCo and the presence or absence of
the PP will be shown to have syntactic effects.
Fumi and Myung-kwan (2003: 140) “examined asymmetry between Case/Agreement and
Movement in coordination structure in English, arguing against Grohmann et al's (2000)
unified approach to Case/Agreement and Movement. They analysed the asymmetry
constitutes supportive of evidence for the existence of the EPP independent of
Case/Agreement. They have observed that singular agreement is possible in expletive
constructions when the associate is in NP/DP coordinate structure”, as shown in (34):
(34)
(a) There was [a man and a cat] in the kitchen
(b) There were [a man and a cat] in the kitchen
However, if small clauses are conjoined, then plural agreement is impossible; that is, singular
agreement is the only option for the sentence to be acceptable. The relevant data are
illustrated below:
(35)
(a) There was a man in the bathroom and a cat in the kitchen
(b) *There were a man in the bathroom and a cat in the kitchen.
Fumi and Myung-kwan (2003) observed that the contrast in (35) above indicates that even
though the NP in the second conjunct is plural, the auxiliary verb does not show plural
agreement as shown below:
(36)
(a) There was a man in the bathroom and two cats in the kitchen.
(b) *There were a man in the bathroom and two cats in the kitchen.
42
This study, however, like the ones reviewed above did not consider coordination in Kaonde.
From the studies that have been reviewed above, it is clear that although a number of studies
and research have been carried out on Zambian languages and indeed Bantu languages in
general, no study has been carried out to investigate the structure and functions of andcoordination in these languages, except for the one done on Swahili. Further, no study has
been undertaken to look fully on what constitutes coordinating conjunctions in the Kaonde
language. Because of this, it is clear that a knowledge gap exists in this language with regard
to the syntax of connections, and and-coordination to be specific. As it has been alluded to,
coordination is a phenomenon that exists in every language, but it varies across languages.
Thus, it was imperative that this study was conducted to describe the process of andcoordination in Kaonde.
2.8 Conclusion
This chapter has presented a review of critical points of current knowledge including
substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to coordination.
The purpose of the chapter was therefore, to situate the current study within the body of
literature and to provide the context for this particular study. It also provided an overview of
some of the works that have been done in Kaonde and similar studies conducted on the topic
of coordination in other languages.
CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.0 Introduction
This chapter outlines the theoretical framework used in this research. It discusses the theories
used as well as shows their importance to the present study. The theoretical framework used
in this study to analyse the syntactic aspect of coordinate structure is X-bar theory of
Government and Binding theory. Descriptive linguistics was used to account for the semantic
aspect of coordinate structures which could not be dealt with using X-bar theory. According
to Crystal (1991) the aim of descriptive linguistics is to describe the facts of linguistic usage
43
as they are, not as they ought to be, with reference to some imagined ideal state. Because Xbar theory cannot account for the semantic functions of coordinate structures, descriptive
linguistics was employed. In this chapter we further show that although there are a number of
new theories that have been developed to analyse grammar such as Minimalist Program
(MP), ‘unlike most other linguistic theories, GB has a degree of ‘deductive structure’ in the
sense that changes made in one area has repercussions in other areas’ (Horrocks 1987).
Chomsky’s Government and Binding (GB) theory was developed using the English language.
Hence, the researcher tried to see how the theory would apply to coordinate structures in
Kaonde. Where possible, some suggestions and alterations were made to the theory in order
to achieve conformity with the structure of the language in question – Kaonde. It should be
noted that this theory is a radical revision of Chomsky’s earlier theories (Standard Theory
1957-1980) and was later revised into The Minimalist Program (MP) (1995).
Chomsky (1995) presents MP as a program, not as a theory. The MP seeks to be a mode of
inquiry characterized by the flexibility of the multiple directions that its minimalism enables.
Ultimately, the MP provides a conceptual framework used to guide the development of
grammatical theory. For Chomsky, there are minimalist questions, but the answers can be
framed in any theory. Of all these questions, the one that plays the most crucial role is this:
why language has the properties it has. The MP lays out a very specific view of the basis of
syntactic grammar that, when compared to other formalisms, it is often taken to look very
much like a theory.
A major development of MP inquiry is bare phrase structure (BPS), a theory of phrase
structure (sentence building prior to movement) developed by Noam Chomsky (Chomsky
1995). The introduction of BPS has moved the Chomskyan tradition toward the dependency
grammar tradition, which operates with significantly less structure than most phrase structure
grammars (Osborne, Putnam and Gross 2011).
This theory contrasts with X-bar theory, which preceded it, in four important ways:
a. BPS is explicitly derivational. That is, it is built from the bottom up, bit by bit. In
contrast, X-bar theory is representational—a structure for a given construction is built
in one fell swoop, and lexical items are inserted into the structure.
44
b. BPS does not have a preconceived phrasal structure, while in X-bar theory every
phrase has a specifier, a head, and a complement.
c. BPS permits only binary branching, while X-bar theory permits both binary and unary
branching.
d. BPS does not distinguish between a "head" and a "terminal", while some versions of
X-bar theory require such a distinction.
Although MP is one of the latest programs developed by Chomsky, this study used GB
because in X-bar theory every phrase has a specifier, a head, and a complement which
conforms to coordination structure as they (coordinate structures) are made up of atleast two
conjuncts and a conjunction which correspond to the specifier, head and complement
structure of X-bar theory. This is in line with Dowty (1992) who assumes that sentences of a
language are described by rules of a recursive grammar which specify how words and phrases
of some categories can be combined to form expressions of another category. It is also
assumed that language is interpreted by semantic rules, corresponding one-to-one to the
syntactic rules that specify how the interpretation of a syntactically-derived phrase is
determined by the interpretations of the inputs to the rule. All this implies syntactic
constituents, in one sense. GB has a degree of ‘deductive structure’ in the sense that changes
made in one area have repercussions in other areas’ (Horrocks 1987). This comes about
because of sub theories of UG interacting, and complex sets of grammatical properties
following from this interaction (Nkolola 2004). Therefore, one is able to adequately analyse
syntactic constituents (coordinate structures in this case) using GB.
3.1 Government and Binding (GB) Theory
Government and Binding theory is a theory of syntax in the tradition of Transformation
Generative Grammar developed principally by Noam Chomsky in the 1980s. This theory is a
radical revision of his earlier theory (Standard Theory 1957-1980). GB comprises two sub
theories, namely; ‘government’ (which is an abstract syntactic relation) and ‘binding’ (which
deals with the referents of pronouns, anaphors and R-expressions).
3.1.1 Government
According to Haegman (1994), the main application of the government relation concerns the
assignment of case. Government is defined as follows:
A governs B if and only if
45
•
A is a governor and
•
A m-commands B and
•
no barrier intervenes between A and B.
Governors are heads of the lexical categories such as verbs (V), nouns (N), adjectives (A),
preposition (P) and inflection (INFL). A m-commands B if A does not dominate B and B
does not dominate A and the first maximal projection of A dominates B. The maximal
projection of a head X is XP. “So government is in a sense a special version of c-command;
the government must be of the five X' head categories (N, V, P, A, INFL), and no maximal
projections may intervene between it and the governee.” (Sells 1985: 40) This means that for
example in a structure like the following, A m-commands B, but B does not m-command A:
Figure 3: Government Relation.
Haegeman (1994:163) defines barrier as follows: A barrier is any node Z such that
•
Z is a potential governor for B and
•
Z c-commands B and
•
Z does not c-command A
The tree diagram below illustrates how determiner phrases (DPs) are governed and assigned
case by their governing heads:
46
Figure 4: Case Assignment of DPs. (Haegman 1994).
In Figure 4 above the DPs the Ming vase and a hammer in the sentence ‘He smashed the
Ming vase with a hammer’ shows a government relation that makes case assignment
unambiguous. For instance, the definite article the is governed by the verb smash and the
indefinite article a is governed by the preposition with.
The government relation makes case assignment unambiguous. This is so because the theory
is concerned with principles of government. That is, there should be a government marked by
case relationship between a head and an object or other complement. For example,
(1) I met her at school.
In (1) above the object her is governed by the verb (head) met.
3.1.2 Binding
According to Sells (1985) Binding theory is primarily concerned with the condition under
which NPs are interpreted as co-referential with other NPs in the same sentence.
Binding can be defined as follows:
•
An element α binds an element β where α c-commands β if and only if every maximal
projection dominating α also dominates β.
47
Consider the sentence "Johni saw hisi mother." which is diagrammed below using simple
phrase structure rules.
Figure 5: Binding Relation
The NP "John" c-commands "his" because the first parent of the NP, S, contains "his". "John"
and "his" are also coreferential (they refer to the same person), therefore "John" binds "his".
On the other hand, in the ungrammatical sentence "*The mother of Johni likes himselfi",
"John" does not c-command "himself", so they have no binding relationship despite the fact
that they corefer.
Figure 6: Binding Principle
The importance of binding is shown in the grammaticality of the following sentences:
(2) *Johni saw himi.
(3) Johni saw himselfi.
(4) *Himselfi saw Johni.
48
(5) *Johni saw Johni.
In (2) and (5) the subject and the object are coreferential hence ungrammatical. (4) is
ungrammatical because the subject himself lacks lexical content thereby violating the
principle B as discussed below.
According to Sells (1985) Binding is used, along with particular binding principles of the
grammaticality of sentences, to explain the ungrammaticality of the above statements. The
applicable rules are called Binding Principle A, Binding Principle B, and Binding Principle
C.
•
Principle A: an anaphor (reflexive or reciprocal, such as "each other") must be bound
in its governing category (roughly, the clause).
Since "himself" is not c-commanded by "John" in sentence (4), Principle A is violated.
•
Principle B: a pronoun must be free (that is, not bound) within its governing category
(roughly, the clause).
In sentence (2), "him" is bound by "John", violating Principle B.
•
Principle C: an R-expression must be free (that is, not bound). R-expressions (for
example, "the dog" or "John") are referential expressions: unlike pronouns and
anaphora, they independently refer, that is, pick out entities in the world.
In sentence (5), the first instance of "John" binds the second, violating Principle C.
Note that Principles A and B refer to "governing categories"--domains which limit the scope
of binding (Chomsky 1981-93).
3.2 Organization of GB Grammar
The overall organization of the GB grammar is shown in Figure 7 below.
49
Figure 7: Organisation of Grammar in GB (Source: Sells 1985)
In 1957, Noam Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, in which he developed the idea that
each sentence in a language has two levels of representation – a deep structure and surface
structure. The deep structure represents the core semantic relations of a sentence, and is
mapped on the surface structure (which followed the phonological form of the sentence very
closely) via transformation. The d-structure and s-structure in GB play roles similar but not
identical to the TGG notions of deep structure and surface structure. The s-structure is the
product of the application of transformational rules to d-structure. The phonetic form (PF)
represents the actual words. It is the output of the grammar at the sound end. The logical form
(LF) is the level at the meaning and deals with meaning. It interprets the meaning after the
phonetic form has been applied. It relates semantic interpretation which refers to the process
whereby a stream of symbols such as a sentence of some language is put into correspondence
with some non-linguistic objects such as a particular state of affairs. The LF through the
technique of lexical decomposition or componential analysis seeks to reveal the contribution
made by each word in a sentence to the entailment of the meaning (Sells 1985).
According to Sells (1985) in GB Chomsky’s aim was to develop a universal grammar by
coming up with a general theory which is government and binding theory and this theory has
a set of sub-theories which include; X-bar theory, Theta theory, Trace theory, Bounding
theory and Case theory - each of which dealing with some central area of grammatical
50
aspects of structural levels. Each of these theories comprises a principle or set of principles
such as the X-schema, Theta Criterion, Projection Principle, Move Alpha and Case Filter.
The choices made at a structural level of one of the theories have an effect on the other
structural levels or other theories. The organisation of the GB grammar, with all its different
components, is illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Government and Binding Theory (Sells 1985: 24).
According to Horrocks (1987: 101) “It is particularly important that the theory should have
an essentially deductive structure, so that the choices made in one area have repercussions in
others. In this way it is predicated that whole clusters of grammatical properties will typically
occur together in the grammars of languages of a certain ‘type’, and if this turns out to be the
case, the chances that the theory of universal grammar holds only accidentally of the system
whose properties it seeks to delimit are considerably reduced.” According to Horrocks
(1987:101) the sub theories assumed are the following:
(a) X-bar theory
(b) Theta theory
(c) Case theory
(d) Binding theory
51
(e) Bounding theory
(f) Control theory
(g) Government theory
In this study, however, what has been used is the X-bar theory. This theory of syntax has
been chosen on the pretext that it is able to explain modern linguistic phenomena in a more
convincing manner given the current research objectives of the study. This, however, does
not imply that other sub theories of GB not used are inferior. It is only that they are not suited
for the current research objectives.
3.2.1 X-Bar Theory
According to Horrocks (1987: 101) “This theory provides principles for the projection of
phrasal categories and imposes conditions on the hierarchical organization of lexical
categories in the form of general schemata.” A phrase in X-bar syntax always contains at
least a head and may contain other constituents; it is endocentric. According to Nkolola
(2010) it is believed that most phrasal constituents have ‘heads’ upon which the other
elements of the constituents under consideration are dependent. These heads give phrases
their essential character. On the basis of this, the X'-scheme has been proposed by Sells
(1985) in X'- Bar Theory to account for phrasal constituents as presented below:
Figure 9: X-schema (Sells 1985)
The top node (X'') is the mother and the two that follow (the ‘specifier’ and the X') are the
daughters, and the two are therefore sisters. The X-bar rules are applied to specifiers,
complements, adjuncts and conjunctions. That is, in X-bar theory every phrase has a
52
specifier, a head, and a complement. For instance, the NP the driver has the ‘specifier’ the,
the head driver and an ‘empty or zero’ Ǿ complement as illustrated below.
Figure 10: X-schema of the NP the driver
Because coordination always has at least two conjuncts, it can easily be accounted for in Xbar syntax. For instance, in chapter two of this dissertation it was observed that a coordinate
structure is usually made up of at least two conjuncts (which can either be lexical categories,
phrasal categories, clauses or sentences) and a conjunction. The conjuncts will be conjoined
together by a conjunction to form one larger linguistic unit of the same kind. This
generalization may be formalized as the following phrase structure rule, where α is any
phrasal category, lexical category, clause or sentence. The usual analysis for and-coordinate
structure is to posit a rule schema of the form;
α → α and α
Choosing some value for α (such as NP, A or Det) gives us a particular coordinate rule with
conjuncts of the same category (Bright 1992: 311). Because “a fundamental and central
concept in all contemporary syntax is the concept of the head, the head of a linguistic unit is
that part of the unit that gives it its essential character. The phrase is said to be the projection
of the head. Standardly, two levels of representation are countenanced; the phrasal level (such
as NP) is assumed to be related to its head by an intermediate, semi-phrasal, level.” (Sells
1985: 27-28) In this case, therefore, a conjunction can be a head. According to Progovac
(1998: 3) “The idea that conjunction is a head of a phrase, typically the conjunction phrase
(&P), has been explicitly proposed or explored by many, including: Munn (1987) …and
53
Kayne (1994).” This analysis has become more readily available only with the advent of the
X'-theory. This is because, the constituency-based, binary branching structures of the X-bar
schema increase the number of nodes in the parse tree to the upper limits of what is possible.
According to Johnnessen (1998) as quoted by De Vos (2005), coordination has a specifiercomplement structure, where the first conjunct is in the specifier of a coordination phrase
headed by a coordinator AND. The second conjunct is a complement of AND. For example,
& = coord (for coordinator); the & itself is labelled a & with no bar, and the units labelled
with one bar (&') and with two bars (&") are successive phrases of which it is head. “Comp
(for complement) is a cover term for anything that combines with a & to form a & with a
single bar; spec (for specifier) is a similar term for anything that combines with a &' to form a
&" (Mathews 2005: 405). Therefore, the X- schema for coordination which is adopted in this
dissertation can be presented as illustrated in Figure 11 below.
Figure 11: X-Schema for Coordination
Thus, in the sentence Mushima wajile ne kulala ‘Mushima ate and slept’, the verb phrase
wajile ne kulala ‘ate and slept’ can be presented as illustrated in Figure 12 below using the Xschema which has a preconceived phrasal structure of a specifier (wajile), a head (ne) and a
complement (kulala).
54
Figure 12: The X- schema of the VP wajile ne kulala ‘…ate and slept’
This is in accordance with Progovac (1998: 3) who claims that “This basic analysis allows
various specific implementations: conjuncts can be specifiers and complements in a &P with
recursive complements: conjuncts can be attached by adjunction; conjunctions can be treated
as heads that do not project a &P.” In the same vein, Johannessen (1998) argues that the nonfinal conjuncts are specifiers in a conjunction phrase, and that the final conjunct is a
complement. This is further illustrated in Figure 13 below for two-termed coordination.
Figure 13: Two-Termed Coordination
55
In figure (13) above, the two conjuncts (first and second) have been linked together by a
coordinator to form a coordinate structure, where the first conjunct is the specifier, where as
the second one is the complement of a coordination phrase headed by a coordinator.
Figure 14 below accounts for three-termed coordination. This is the case where you have
three conjuncts coordinated by two conjunctors. This is so because coordination of more than
two items in Kaonde language, like most Bantu languages, will usually require a coordinator
after each and every item coordinated, hence, polysyndentic.
Figure 14: Three-Termed Coordination
This, therefore, is in line with Munn (1993) who postulates that coordinate structures are
asymmetrical, hierarchical structures that conform to X-bar theory. The conjunction head
projects a phrase which is adjoined to the first conjunct. This provides an account of a
number of syntactic asymmetries in conjunct ordering including agreement and binding
asymmetries and provides a principled analysis of Across-the-Board extraction as instances
56
of parasitic gaps. In this case therefore, the first conjunct is in the specifier position while the
second conjunct is in the complement position as shown above.
3.3 Conclusion
This chapter has outlined the theoretical frameworks used in this research. It has discussed
the theories used as well as attempted to show their importance to the present study. In this
chapter we have tried to show that although there are a number of new theories that have
been developed to analyse grammar such as MPS, ‘unlike most other linguistic theories, GB
has a degree of ‘deductive structure’ in the sense that changes made in one area have
repercussions in other areas’ (Horrocks 1987). This comes about because of sub theories of
GB interacting, and complex sets of grammatical properties following from this interaction
(Nkolola 2010). For instance, the X-bar theory`s binary branching can be used to analyse
coordinate structure thus this study is guided by X-bar theory. Furthermore, because GB has a
holistic approach to grammar, it has made it possible for us to discuss the syntax and
semantics of and-coordination under one chapter. Additionally, because the X-bar theory
cannot be used to account for the semantic aspect of coordinate structure, descriptive
linguistic was used to account for their semantic functions.
57
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis and discussion of the data collected on and-coordination in
Kaonde. It provides coordinated structures in Kaonde that make use of and as a coordinating
conjunction. It begins by identifying and-coordinator(s), that is, coordinator(s) that are
equivalent to and in Kaonde. Further, it categorises the coordinate structures according to
their types and gives account of coordinated structures in Kaonde. It discusses the nature of
and-coordination in Kaonde, what can be coordinated as well as the nature of conjuncts and
coordinators in Kaonde using Government and Binding theory.
Note that the examples throughout this section employ the convention whereby the conjuncts
of coordinate structures are marked using square brackets. The coordinate structure each time
includes all the material that follows the left-most square bracket and precedes the right-most
square bracket. The coordinators appear in italics and bold scripts between the conjuncts. All
the data presented in this discussion have been glossed to English. Each text has been literally
translated for the sake of clarity.
4.1 And-Coordinators in Kaonde
Coordinators that are equivalent to and in Kaonde take various shapes depending on what is
being coordinated. These variants are a result of phonological and morphological processes at
word boundary as well as the syntax of the conjuncts. Kaonde displays such characteristics as
ne and kabiji as variant of the coordinator that is equivalent to and in English. Further,
Kaonde has zero coordination.
4.1.1 Ne Coordination
When coordinating elements, ne will be used depending on the nature of conjuncts. ‘And’ in
Kaonde is ‘ne’ when used to conjoin nouns and noun phrases, verbs and verb phrases as
shown in 1 (a), (b) and (c) below.
(1) (a) Bantu bonse, [1[2bainetu] ne [bashatu2]1] ne [1[2banyike] ne [bakulumpe2]1], batoma
meema.
[Lit: people all women and men and children and elders they drink water]
‘All people, [1[2female] and [male2]1], and [1[2children] and [elders2]1] drink water.’
58
(b) Bansonwalume [bafunda kuluka mape] ne [kutunga mazubo].
[Lit: boys they learn to-neat baskets and to build houses]
‘Boys [learn how to neat baskets] and [build houses].’
(c) [Waesekele] ne [kukankalwa].
[Lit: s/he –tried and to fail]
‘S/he tried and s/he failed.’
In example 1 (a) above, four nouns have been joined together by the coordinator ne to form a
noun phrase while in 1(b) and (c) what have been joined are verb phrases and sentences.
The conjunction ne should be joined to common nouns and verbal nouns but not to proper
nouns (Zambian Languages Orthography 1977). Thus, it is either regarded syntactically or
phonologically as part of the words following it depending on the nature of conjuncts. For
instance, there is the use of an adjunct (any element attached to a word which is not part of its
nucleus) when coordinating common nouns. In this case, the coordinator is adjoined to the
second conjunct being conjoined. For example, in 2 (a) and (b) below, the coordinator is part
of the conjuncts or conjoins and thus the bracketing analysis cannot apply since the language
convention does not permit a disjunctive presentation of the coordinator when conjoining
common nouns. A disjunct is an element belonging to the periphery of its word and
qualifying or commenting on the remainder (Mathew 2005).
(2) (a) Bataata nebamaama baiya.
[Lit: father and-mother they-have-come]
‘[Father] and [mother] have come.’
(b) Bamwisho bakwasha baankambo kujima nekupotesha bishu kukisankanyi.
[Lit: uncle he-helps grandmother to-cultivate and-to-sell vegetables at the market]
‘Uncle helps grandmother to [cultivate] and [sell vegetables] at the market.’
When conjoining proper nouns, however, the conjunction ne should not be adjoined to
conjuncts but left to stand on its own.
59
(3) (a) [Kasempa] ne [Solwezi] kokuji nkunde yawaama.
[Lit: Kasempa and Solwezi is-where-there-is beans good]
‘Kasempa] and [Solwezi] is where there are good beans.’
(b). [Mushima] ne [Nkwashi] pakilongo.
[Lit: Mushima and Nkwashi they-are-brothers]
‘Mushima and [Nkwashi] are brothers.’
In this case, the phrase structure for ne as a coordinator using the X-schema will be projected
as follows;
Figure 15: Ne coordination in X-schema
It should be noted that the other constituents such as the infinitive ku (to) is used with the
coordinator in Kaonde when conjoining verbs. For example, in (4) below, the infinitive is
used as seen in the literal translation, kutanga (‘to read’).
(4) Unemba nekutanga.
[Lit: s/he-write and-to-read]
‘s/he [writes] and [reads].
60
4.1.2 Na Coordination
Na which often serves as the adposition ‘with’ can also be used to coordinate sentential
elements as shown below (Heine and Nurse (1978).
(5) (b) Baatemwa kuja [nshima] na [nyama].
[Lit: they-like to-eat nshima and meat]
‘They like eating [nshima] and [meat].’
In this case, the phrase structure for na as a coordinator using the X-schema will be projected
as follows;
Figure 16: Na coordination in X-schema
However, as we have already alluded to, na often serves as the adposition ‘with’(Heine and
Nurse (1978: 218). For example, in the sentences below na is used as an adposition ‘with’.
(6) Bamwisho beya na motoka wabo.
[Lit: uncle he-comes with motor-car his]
‘Uncle comes with his motor car.’
(7) Ba Shilungano baiyanga na bampuku.
[Lit: Mr Shilungano he-used-to-come with rats]
61
‘Mr Shilungano used to come with rats.’
4.1.3 Kabiji Coordination
In Kaonde the form of ‘and’ used for joining adjectives is different. ‘Ne is used when
coordinating nouns and verbs. A different coordinator is used when conjuncts are either
adjectives or sentences. Kabiji, which has a near translation of ‘again’, is usually used for
adjectives and clauses as exemplified in (8), (9) and (10).
(8) Bainabo [baleepa] kabiji [babaya].
[Lit: their-mother she-is-tall and she-is-fat]
‘Their mother is [tall] and [fat].’
(9) Mazubo aamalata [aakosa bingi] kabiji [aji namum`tengo].
[Lit: houses with-iron-roof they-are-very-strong and they-are-expensive]
‘Iron-roofed houses are [very strong] and [expensive].
(10) [Baambilenga bino mambo kitentanshi kyaipaile bantu bavula bingi] kabiji
[bishimikwa byavula byakundukile].
[Lit: they-were-saying this because earthquake it-killed people many and stories-many
were revealed]
‘[They were saying this because an earthquake killed many people] and [many stories were
revealed].’
Using a different form of the conjunction such as ne ‘and’ to conjoin adjectives would
produce an ill –formed construction.
(11) *Bainabo [baleepa] ne [babaya]
[Lit: their-mother she-is-tall and she-is-fat]
‘Their mother is [tall] and [fat].
In addition, kabiji as a conjunction cannot be used ordinarily in polysyndetic coordination.
Kabiji can only be used in polysyndetic coordination for stylistically marked effect used to
emphasise a dramatic sequence of events otherwise it is ungrammatical as shown below.
(12) *Bainabo [baleepa] kabiji [batooka] kabiji [manyana] kabiji [balamba].
62
[Lit: their-mother she-is-tall and she-is-light and she-is-slim and she-is-beautiful]
‘Their mother is [tall] and [light] and [slim] and [beautiful].’
In this case, the phrase structure for kabiji as a coordinator using the X-schema will be
projected as follows;
Figure 17: Kabiji Coordination in X-schema
Therefore, like most Bantu languages, Kaonde tends to have different shapes of what can be
translated as ‘and’ in English. Nouns, adjectives, verbs, and clauses use different forms of the
coordinator and. This is in line with Welmers (1976: 129) who urges that, “as is almost
universally true in Niger –Congo languages, a conjunction which joins nouns...cannot be used
to join … sentences.” Heine and Nurse (1978: 218) also argue that, “The coordination of
clauses within a sentence in African languages is generally different from coordination within
noun phrases.”
4.2 Nature of Conjuncts in Kaonde
This section looks at linguistic units that can be coordinated by AND to form coordinate
structures, and these include; nouns and noun phrases, verbs and verb phrases, adjectives and
adjective phrases, adverbs and adverb phrases, prepositions and prepositional phrases and
clauses/sentences as well as ‘unlike categories’ and pseudo-coordination. Therefore, the
section begins by identifying the nature of conjuncts and how they operate in Kaonde.
63
4.2.1 Lexical and Phrasal conjuncts
This section looks at the coordination of phrasal lexical and phrasal conjuncts using ne, na
and kabiji.
4.2.1.1Coordination of Noun and Noun Phrases
In (13) below, na has been used to conjoin two nouns to form a coordinate structure.
(13) Baatemwa bingi kuja [nshima] na [nyama]. (N + N)
[Lit: they-like very-much- to-eat nshima and meat]
‘They like eating [nshima] and [meat] very much’
The nouns nshima and nyama have been linked by na to form a coordinate structure nshima
na nyama. The two lexical units of equal status (both nouns) have been conjoined to form a
larger syntactic unit which is an NP.
In (14) below, three nouns (Mukwemba, Mose, Jilanda) have been conjoined by ne to form
larger units with the structure; N + N + N, respectively. Therefore, in Kaonde, coordinators
ne and na as a form of and connect two or more elements (nouns and noun phrases) of equal
importance to form larger syntactic units.
(14) [Mukwemba] ne [Mose] ne [Jilanda] baana baba Mutobwe (N + N + N)
[Lit: Mukwemba and Mose and Jilanda they-are-children of-M
r Mutowe]
‘[Mukwemba] and[ Mose] and [Jilanda] are Mr. Mutobwe’s children’
In this case, And – coordination differs in English and Bantu in terms of usage. According to
Coghill (1997) when a coordinating conjunction connects more than two (2) items in English,
the coordinating conjunction usually appears between the last two items in a series. Commas
separate the other items in that series as shown in example 15 below.
(15) You will need [a scissors], [glue], [green felt] and [silk flowers].
Thus the following sentence is not desirable in English;
(16) *You will need [a scissors] and [glue] and [green felt] and [silk flowers].
However, the opposite is true of Kaonde as it can be observed from the example in (14).
When connecting a series of items, one uses a coordinator ne after each item. In English,
64
nonetheless, polysyndeton can occur where more than one conjunction may be included for
emphasis otherwise it is ungrammatical.
(17) [The wind roared] and [the lightning flashed] and [the sky was suddenly as dark as
night].
In this instance, polysyndeton which tends to be reserved for stylistically marked effect is
used to emphasise a dramatic sequence of events. Therefore, according to Halliday (2004),
you generally use a comma before the coordinating conjunction in English if you are
connecting three or more items in a series, that is;
Item, + item, + item, + and (coordinating conjunction) + item.
In (18), what have been conjoined are two NPs; bafunjishi and banasi bonse by the
coordinator ne to form a larger syntactic unit (bafunjishi ne banasi bonse) which is a
compound NP.
(18) Bafunjishi nebanasi bonse basebenza kukamfulumende (NP + NP)
[Lit: Teachers and-nurses all-of-them they-work for-government]
‘[Teachers] and [all the nurses] work for the government’
In sentence (19), an N (kamono) and NP (bakwaabo bansongwakazhi) have been conjoined
by ne.
(19) Kamono nebakwaabo bansongwakazhi baatemwa kukaya mpila. (NP + NP)
[Lit: Kamono and-her-friends girls they-like to-play football]
‘[Kamono] and [her girlfriends] like playing football’
Thus, the coordinate structure of an NP in Kaonde can be formalized as;
NP → ne [N] and [N]ⁿ,
This rule states that an NP can consist of any number of nouns that are conjoined by the
conjunctor ne after each and every conjunct to form a larger NP.
4.2.1.2 Coordination of Verbs and Verb Phrases
In the sentences below, ne has been used to connect two or more verbs or verb phrases to
form larger syntactic units. For instance, in sentence (20) the verbs -nemba and -tanga have
65
been connected by ne to form -nemba ne kutanga. It should be noted here that in (20) as in
most Bantu languages, the infinitive is used as seen in the literal translation (kutanga ‘to
read’).
(20) (a) Wanemba nekutanga (V + V)
[Lit: s/he-has-written and-read]
‘He has [written] and [read]’
(b). Kamono ukwashako baainanji [kupyanga mu nzhubo] ne [kuchapa bivwalo] (VP
+ VP)
[Lit: Kamono she-helps her-mother to-sweep in the house and to-wash clothes]
‘Kamono helps her mother to [sweep the house] and [wash clothes].’
(c). Natemwa kufwenka nekwendesha nkinga (V + VP)
[Lit: I-like to-swim and-ride bicycle]
‘I like to [swim] and [ride bicycle]’
Furthermore, in sentence (21) what has been connected by the conjunction ne are a VP, a V
and V. The conjunction ne is used after each and every conjunct to form the structure;
VP + V + V
where the first conjunct is a verb phrase kukaya mpila ya kumaboko, the second one is the
verb -nemba and the third one is the verb -tanga.
(21) Bafunda [kukaya mpila ya kumaboko] ne [kuteeka] ne [kupyanga] (VP + V + V)
[Lit: they-learn to-play netball and to-cook and to-sweep]
‘They learn to [play netball] and [cook] and [sweep]’
It should be noted that the other constituents such as the infinitive ku (to) is used with the
coordinator in Kaonde, like most African languages, when conjoining verbs as shown in (21)
above where the infinitive ku is adjoined to –teeka and -pyanga.
Using the X-schema, 20 (c) will be projected shown below.
66
Figure 18: Coordinate Structure of VPs
Thus, the coordinate structure of VPs in Kaonde can be formalized as;
VP → ne [V] and [V]ⁿ,
where ⁿ represents any number of coordinate elements. This can be seen as exemplified in 26
above where the conjuncts are more than two. For instance, in (21) the VP kukaya mpila
yakumaboko, the V kuteeka and the V kupyanga have been combined polysyndetonically
using ne thereby, forming a structure;
VP → VP + V + V
This rule states that a VP can consist of any number of nouns that are conjoined by the
conjunctor ne after each and every conjunct to form a larger VP.
4.2.1.3 Coordination of Adjectives and Adjective Phrases
According to Mathews (2005) adjectival phrase or adjective phrase (AP) refers to a phrase
built upon an adjective, which functions as the head of that phrase. It should be noted here
that specific adjective stems in Kaonde (as in other Bantu languages) are very few (Wright
2007). Thus, in most cases verbs with the infinitive ku are used to modify nouns. For
example, the infinitive ku will be added to the –leepa ‘tall’ to have kuleepa as shown below.
(22) Mwanabo [watooka] ne [kuleepa].
67
[Lit: their-child s/he-is-light and tall]
‘Their child is [light] and [tall].’
Adjective phrase is one that collectively modifies or describes a noun or pronoun and which
can usually be used both attributively and predicatively, can be graded, and be modified by
an adverb (Mathew 2005). An AP will function as a subject complement or object
complement as shown in 23 and 24, respectively.
(23) Sukuulu yawama bingi.
[Lit: school it-is-good very]
‘School is very good.’
(24) Ba Shilungamo baleetanga nyama yatobala bingi.
[Lit: mr Shilungamo he-used-to bring meat it-tasty very]
‘Mr Shilungamo used to bring very tasty meat.’
Like other phrases, an AP consists of one or more words where the adjective phrase is
optional. In 25, the conjuncts are adjective phrases.
(25) John [wangovu bingi] kabiji [wamaana bingi]. (AP + AP)
[Lit: John he-is-strong very and he-is-intelligent very]
‘John is [very strong] and [very intelligent].’
(26) Mwana ubenakuja tumango [tucheche], [tubishi] kabiji [twaluula].
[Lit: child it-is-eating mango small, unripe and bitter]
‘The child is eating [small], [unripe] and [bitter] mangoes.’
In these sentences the word kabiji has been used to connect adjectives and adjective phrases
to form larger syntactic units. For instance, in 25 the adjective phrases wangovu bingi and
wamaana bingi have been linked to form the conjunction wangovu bingi kabiji wamaana
bingi by kabiji which is a form of and. In the above, the form of ‘and’ used for joining
68
adjectives and that for verbs is different as we have discussed in this chapter above. Thus, the
coordinate structure of an AP in Kaonde can be formalized as;
AP → kabiji [A] and [A]ⁿ,
The coordinate structure for the adjective phrase baleepa kabiji babaya ‘…tall and fat’ can be
projected using the X-schema as follows;
Figure 19: Coordinate Structure of an AP
However, it should be noted that kabiji is not always used as a variant of the coordinator ne.
Kabiji can be used to mean ‘ in addition’, ‘moreover’, ‘further’ or ‘again’ depending on the
context. In example (27) below, ‘kabiji’ means ‘further’.
(27) Kabiji Lesa wibapesheshe ne kwibambila ‘mba: semainga ne kusemununa.
[Lit: further God he-blessed-them and he-told-them that: give-birth and give-birthrepeatedly]
‘Further God blessed them and said to them: Be fruitful and become many.’
In this case, therefore, not all sentences that use the word kabiji are coordinated because
‘kabiji’ does not always translate into ‘and’. This is so because although and can express
addition in coordinate structures, it cannot be used at the beginning of a sentence as shown in
(28) below.
(28) *Ne Lesa wibapeshehse ne kwibambila amba: semainga ne kusemununa.
69
[Lit: and God he-blessed-them and he-told-them that: give-birth and give-birthrepeatedly]
‘And God blessed them and said to them: Be fruitful and become many.’
4.2.1.4 Prepositions and Prepositional Phrases
According to Mathews (2005) a prepositional phrase (PP) is a group of words containing a
preposition, a noun or pronoun object of the preposition, and any modifiers of the object. A
PP can function as a noun, an adjective, or an adverb, and like all phrases will consist of at
least one word. As an adjective, the PP will answer the question which one, and as an adverb
it will answer the question where, when or how in a sentence. For instance, in (29) and (30)
the conjuncts answer the question where (adverbials of place or locative).
(29)
Nangwa bakeebele [mukachi] ne [pangye] kechibekitaine ne (P + P)
[Lit: although they-searched inside and outside they-did-not-find-it]
‘Although they searched [inside] and [outside], they did not find it.’
(30)
Bafunjisha banyike kukaya bulongo na bakwaabo [ku sukuulu] neku nzhubo (PP
+PP)
[Lit: they-teach children to-play well with their-friends at school and at home]
‘They teach children to play well with their friends [at school] and [at home]’
In the above sentences, prepositions and prepositional phrases have been connected by the
word ne to form conjuncts. Thus, (30) above can be projected as shown below as we have
coordination of two PPs.
70
Figure 20: Coordinate Structure of a PP
Thus, the coordinate structure of a PP in Kaonde can be formalized as;
PP → ne [P] and [P]ⁿ
This rule states that a PP can consist of any number of prepositions that are conjoined by the
conjunctor ne after each and every conjunct to form a larger PP.
4.2.2 Coordination of Clauses/Sentences
In example 31 below the sentences Mu taunyi muji myootoka yaavula bingi and mu taunyi
muji mikwaaka yawaama have been conjoined by the coordinator kabiji to form a compound
sentence.
(31) [Mu taunyi muji myootoka yaavula bingi] kabiji [mu taunyi muji mikwaaka yawaama].
[Lit: in town there-are motor cars many and in town there-are roads good]
‘[There are so many motor cars in town] and [there are good roads in town]’
In 32 the clauses Ba shilungamo baiya and bankamboyanji Kyapusanako nabo baiya have
been conjoined by ne to form a compound sentence.
(32) [Ba shilungamo baiya] ne [bankamboyanji Kyapusanako nabo baiya].
[Lit: Mr Shilungamo he-has-come and grandmother-of Kyapusanako also she-hascome]
71
‘[Mr Shilungamo has come] and [the grandmother of Kyampusanako has also come.]’
In this case, therefore, coordination in Kaonde can be sentential. That is, simple sentences in
Kaonde can be conjoined or linked by a conjunction such as ne and kabiji to form a larger
sentence.
Further, (31) above can be projected as shown below as we have coordination of two
sentential conjuncts.
Figure 21: Sentential Coordination
Thus, the coordinate structure of sentences in Kaonde can be formalized as;
S → kabiji [Clause] and [Clause]ⁿ
This rule states that a sentence can consist of any number of clauses that are conjoined by the
conjunctor kabiji after each and every conjunct to form a larger sentence.
However, when coordinating clauses in Kaonde usually no coordinators are used. Instead the
language uses juxtaposition (Heine and Nurse 1978). For instance, one would say:
(33) Waatangilenga buuku, mukwabo waanembelenga nkalata.
[Lit: s/he-was-reading a book, his/her-friend was-writing letter]
72
‘S/he was reading a book, his/her friend was writing a letter’
(34) Mpene maali, nsaku kukwasha kunyema.
[Lit: give-me money, i-will-you to-help to-escape]
‘Give me money, I will help you escape’
(35) Pekale mpunzha pakachi ka mema, yabane mema ke pabiji.
[Lit: let-be expance between the water, they-divide water into two]
‘Let an expanse come to be in between the waters, let a dividing occur between the
waters.’
In (33), (34) and (35) the clauses have not been explicitly linked by any conjunction.
Therefore, we have coordinate structures whose conjuncts are not connected by any
conjunction. Sentences (34) and (45) cannot be written as or rather it would not be
appropriate for the clauses above to be connected using either ne or kabiji as shown below.
(36) *[Mpene maali] kabiji [nsaku kukwasha kunyema].
[Lit: give-me money and I-you escape]
‘[Give me money] and [I will help you escape]’
(37) *Mpene maali ne amiwa nsaku kukwasha kunyema.
[Lit: give-me money and-me I-you escape]
‘[give me money] and [I’ll help you escape]’
This kind of coordination is referred to as asyndetic coordination. Asyndetic coordination, as
was discussed in chapter two, is where coordination occurs without the presence of
conjunctions. No conjunction is present here, but the conjuncts are still coordinated. This is in
line with Heine and Nurses (1978: 218) who postulate that “many languages in Africa do not
use coordinating words. Instead, two or more sentences are simply sprung together”.
Therefore, (33) above can be presented as illustrated in Figure 20 below where the coordinate
structure has no overt coordinator. In this case, the coordinator has no surface realization, that
is, the coordinator is not overtly marked. Because X-bar theory is representational—a
73
structure for a given construction is built in one fell swoop and lexical items are inserted into
the structure (X- bar theory has a preconceived phrasal structure, where in every phrase there
is a specifier, a head, and a complement). Sells (1985: 34) argues that “the conception of
syntactic structures that comes out of the Projection Principle is that some position will exist
in syntactic structure just in case some lexical item requires it to exist. In such cases, the
lexical item is said to liecence the category in the structure.” However, according to the
Projection Princinple certain position may be empty; hence we have an empty category in
Figure 22.
Figure 22: Asydentic Coordination of Sentence (33)
Another important feature worth noting is that when two VPs (verb phrases) with the same
subject are coordinated, the conjunction is positioned after the verb of the second VP and
followed by the infinitive of the same verb as illustrated in (38) below. Therefore, instead of
having coordination of clauses, what are conjoined are verb phrases in the two clauses. In
(38), the VPs nekuya‘and to go’ and baya ‘they have gone’ have been conjoined instead of
the clauses.
(38) Bapwisha kala mwingiilo wabo nekuya baya.
[Lit: They-have-completed already work their and-to-go they-gone]
74
‘[They have already completed their work] and [they have already gone]’
4.2.3 Coordination of Unlike Items
Most coordinate structures are like those just presented in this chapter above; the coordinated
strings are alike in syntactic category. There are a number of unique traits of coordination,
however, that demonstrate that what can be coordinated is not limited to the standard
syntactic categories. All the data presented in this chapter so far illustrate that the conjuncts
are often alike in syntactic category. There are, however, many instances of coordination
where the coordinated strings are NOT alike. For example, the sentences below illustrate this
point.
(39) (a). John wamutaine mu taunyi nemungye (Adverbial of place + N)
[Lit: John-him/her-found in town and-bush]
‘John found him/her [in town] and [bush]’
(b). Peter uji [mulukatazho] kabiji [ba kapokola babena kumukeba] (PP + Clause)
[Lit: Peter he-is in-trouble and the police they-are to-him-look]
‘Peter is [in trouble] and [the police are looking for him]’
In 39 (a) above, the conjuncts are made of an Adverbial of place in town and a noun mungye.
In sentence 39 (b) what have been coordinated are prepositional phrase mulukatazho and the
clause ba kapokola babena kumukeba by the coordinator kabiji. Thus, 39 (a) above can be
projected as shown in Figure 23, below.
75
Figure 23: Coordination of Unlikes
Thus, the coordinate structure for 39 (a) can be formalized as;
VP → ne [PP] and [N]
These illustrate that the theory of and-coordination in Kaonde does not only occur among
syntactic categories that are equal or similar in nature but also among unlike categories.
However, in most instances of coordination, the coordinated strings are alike.
4.2.4 Nested Coordinate Structures
Coordination may be `nested' inside another. Nesting is the inclusion of one syntactic unity
within another (Mathews 2005). This means that a larger coordination may contain a smaller
one inside it. For example, in (40) the coordination Peter ne Jane just happens to be inside
the larger coordination Namwene Peter ne Jane kabiji bajinga namwanabo whose conjuncts
are clauses.
76
(40)
[1Namwene (2Peter) ne (Jane2) keesha] kabiji [bajinga namwanabo1].
[Lit: I-saw peter and Jane yesterday and they-were with-their child]
‘[I saw (Peter) and (Jane) yesterday] and [they were with their child]’
In (40) above, the coordinate structure in square brackets is the larger coordinate structure
which contains the smaller coordinate structure in round brackets. In this case we have two
independent clauses that are coordinated by the coordinator kabiji where the first conjunct
has a coordinate structure of two nouns Peter and Jane within it.
The rules that control the internal structure of a coordinate structure say nothing about the
internal structures of the individual conjuncts, which means the conjuncts are free to contain
smaller coordinate structures just as they can contain any dependency patterns. One
particularly important example of this freedom for coordination structures to nest is that a
conjunct of a larger coordination may consist of nothing but a smaller coordination.
(41) [1Ba mwisho bateemwa (2Mushima) ne (Kyembe2)] kabiji [ba mukamwisho bateemwa
(3Bibusa) ne (Tukiya3)1].
[Lit: Uncle he-like Mushima and Kyembe and aunt she-like Bibusa and Tukiya]
‘[Uncle likes (Mushima) and (Kyembe)] and [aunt likes (Bibusa) and (Tukiya)]’
In (41) above, we have a compound sentence made of two independent clauses that have
smaller coordinations with them. That is, each conjunct (clause) contains NPs that are
coordinated. Thus, (41) above can be projected as shown below as we have coordination of
two NPs within clauses.
77
Figure 24: Nested Coordination
At this level, syntactic presentations need to be demarcated by nesting the constituents. The
round brackets in the following sentences will help interpret these nested constituents. The
interpretation here is that although the three boys came in time, Tukiya and Bibusa came at
the same time but Nkwashi came at a separate instance. However, it will be easy to interpret
that the pairs came at different intervals in the example below. Notice also that the
coordinators of the larger coordination are outside the smaller coordination. For example,
when listing you can pair the coordinates as can be seen from the three possible reading of
(42) below;
(42)
(a) Tukiya ne Bibusa ne Nkwashi baakwiya.
[Lit: Tukiya and Bibusa and Nkwashi they-came]
‘Tukiya and Bibusa and Nkwashi came’
(b). [Tukiya] ne [Bibusa] ne [Nkwashi] baakwiya.
[Lit: Tukiya and Bibusa and Nkwashi they-came]
‘[Tukiya] and [Bibusa] and [Nkwashi] came’
78
(c). [Tukiya] ne [(Bibusa) ne (Nkwashi)] baakwiya.
[Lit: Tukiya and Bibusa and Nkwashi they-came]
‘[Tukiya] and [(Bibusa) and (Nkwashi)] came’
(d). [(Tukiya) ne (Bibusa)] ne [Nkwashi] baakwiya.
[Lit: Tukiya and Bibusa and Nkwashi they-came]
‘[(Tukiya) ne (Bibusa)] and [Nkwashi] came’
The brackets indicate the three possible readings for 42 (a). The 42 (c) and (d) readings show
one coordinate structure being embedded inside another. Which of the three readings is
understood depends on intonation and context. The 42 (c) reading could be preferred in a
situation where Bibusa and Nkwashi arrived together, but Tukiya arrived separately.
Similarly, the 42 (d) reading could be preferred in a situation where Tukiya and Bibusa
arrived together, but Nkwashi arrived separately. 42 (b) is a preferred reading of 42 (a) where
either the trio Tukiya, Bibusa and Nkwashi came together or separately.
4.3 Forms of And-Coordination in Kaonde
In whichever category coordination may be, it may take any of the three forms discussed in
chapter two of this work - syndetic, asyndetic and polysyndetic coordination.
4.3.1 Syndetic Coordination
In sentences 43, 44 and 45 below the coordinate structures have used coordinators to link
different conjuncts.
(43)
[Aye maalwa ashinta] kabiji [akaji bingi].
[Lit: this beer intoxicating and strong very]
‘This beer is [intoxicating] and [very strong].’
(44)
[Mabombwe akafuma komuji], ne [mu mazubo enu], ne [ku bakalume benu], ne
[ku bantu benu].
[Lit: frogs they-will-turn your-way and in house yours and to servants yours and to
79
people yours]
[The frogs will certainly turn away from you] and [your houses] and
[your servants] and [your people]’.
(45)
Baatemwa bingi kuja [nshima] na [masabi].
[Lit: they-like very-much to-eat nshima and fish]
‘They like eating [nshima] and [fish].’
In (43) above, the coordinating conjunction kabiji has been used to co-join the two conjuncts
in square brackets while ne has been used in (44) to link the four phrases. In (45) the two
nouns have been co-joined by the coordinating conjunction na to form a larger syntactic unit
which is an NP. All the constructions in this study where the coordinator (ne, na or kabiji)
has been used are instances of syndetic coordination.
4.3.2 Asyndetic Coordination
As we have already alluded to, coordination can also occur without the presence of
coordinators. For instance, in (46) below no coordinator is used, but the conjuncts are still
coordinated.
(46)
Pekale mpunzha pakachi ka mema, yabane mema ke pabiji.
[Lit: let-there-be expanse between the water, they-divide water in two]
‘Let an expanse come to be in between the waters, let a dividing occur between the
waters.’
Asyndetic coordination is one that is not overtly marked by coordinators such as kabiji, na
and ne. That is, in asyndetic coordination, coordinators are not visibly used. This kind of
coordination (also referred to as parataxis) is, therefore, a process in which constituents are
conjoined without the use of coordinating conjunctions (Quirk and Greenbaum 1973).
According to Heine and Nurse (1978: 218) the coordination of clauses within a sentence in
African languages is generally different from coordination within the noun phrase. While the
coordination of NP often uses a conjunction (ne), coordination of clauses usually uses
juxtaposition. Juxtaposition is prominent in many languages in place of using the conjunction
80
‘and’ when conjuncts are clauses. Many languages in African do not use coordinating words;
instead, the two (or more) clauses are simply strung together. In this kind of coordination,
conjoins are generally separated by a tone-unit boundary in speech or punctuation mark in
writing (Heine and Nurse 1978). For instance, one would say;
(47)
Twayai tumupe maali, keusakubulako bantu bakwabo byo twaubilenga.
[Lit: let-us we-give-him/her money, not-s/he- will-tell people others what we-aredoing]
‘Let’s give him/her some money, s/he won’t tell anybody what we were doing.’
To mean;
(48)
[Let’s give him/her some money] and [s/he won’t tell anybody what we were doing].’
4.3.3 Polysyndetic Coordination
In an event where a coordinate structure has more than two conjuncts, the coordinator is used
after each and every conjunct. In (49) below, the coordinate structure is made up of four
phrases that are linked together.
(49)
Ba Shalunango babukiletu lukeelo-keelo batola [katemo] ne [jifumo] ne [ngonga].
[Lit: Shilunango he-woke-up morning early he-got an axe and a spear and a string]
‘Shilunango woke up early in the morning got [an axe] and [a spear] and [a string].’
After each item the coordinator ne is used thereby forming the structure;
NP + NP + NP, that is, Item ne item ne item.
However, kabiji as a conjunction cannot be used ordinarily in polysyndetic coordination.
Kabiji can only be used in polysyndetic coordination for stylistically marked effect used to
emphasise a dramatic sequence of events otherwise it is ungrammatical. This is because
kabiji (which has a near translation of ‘again’) has a special function in Kaonde as discussed
in 4.1.3 of this chapter (Zambian Languages Orthography 1977).
(50)
[Banda wapumine mukazhanji] kabiji [waiya watuka nebako banji] kabiji [waiya
wasoka nenzubo].
81
[Lit: banda he-beat wife-his and he-came he-insult in-law his and he-came he-burnt
house]
‘[Banda beat his wife] and [then he insulted his in-laws] and [then he burnt the house].’
4.4 Categories of And-Coordination
According to Quirk and Greenbaum (1973) syndetic coordination can either be combinatory
or segregatory. When a phrase linked by ne or kabiji function in a clause, they may express
combinatory or segregatory meaning. The distinction applies to various types of co-joined
phrases, but perhaps clearest to noun phrases (NP).
4.4.1 Combinatory Coordination
This is a kind of coordination where the proposition in the first clause is inseparable from that
in the second. Combinatory coordination can work with various types of conjoined phrases
and this kind is analysed by its inability to be separated as two or more sentences. The
following are examples of joint coordination:
(51)
[Mushima] ne [Kyembe] pakilongo (N +N)
[Lit: Mushima and Kyembe they-are-borthers]
‘[Mushima] and [Kyembe] are brothers’
Combinatory is coordination for which it is inappropriate to provide a paraphrase in terms of
coordinated clauses; this is because the co-joins function in combination. For example, the
co-joined noun phrases in sentences (51) above cannot be paraphrased as coordinated clauses
as exemplified in (51) below, unless brothers does not mean ‘male siblings’. That is, it is not
possible to form a paraphrase of the conjoined constituents. Hence the following sentence is
ungrammatical.
(52)
*[Mushima mulongo] ne [Kyembe mulongo].
[Lit: Mushima is-brother and Kyembe is-brother]
‘[Mushima is a brother] and [Kyembe is a brother]’
Combinatory coordination can be classified in three types.
82
a. Joint Participation
Conjoins of this kind of coordination are interpreted as jointly comprising a single
participation in the process or relationship described by the clause thus,
Example (53) below indicates that the state of fighting cannot be separated but interpreted as
a joint participation of relationship.
(53)
[Jilanda] ne [Mose] balwileenga.
[Lit: Jilanda and Mose they-were-fighting]
‘[Jilanda] and [Mose] were fighting’
b. Mutual Participation
In this kind of coordination, the conjuncts are interpreted as entering into a reciprocal relation
where the action of one participant affects the other and vice-versa. In Kaonde, like other
Bantu languages, the mutual participation is marked by the Reciprocal Extension thus,
A
B
Example (54) exemplifies this phenomenon.
(54)
(a) [Mushima] ne [Emma] bakumene keesha.
[Lit: Mushima and Emma they-met yeaterday]
‘[Mushima] and [Emma] met yesterday’
(b). [Bibusa] ne [Tukiya] bamonangene.
[Lit: Bibusa and Tikya they-saw-each-other]
‘[Bibusa] and [Tukiya] saw each other.’
In 54 (b), the verb kumonangana denotes action which is done to each other. Morphologically
speaking, the verb kumona (‘to see’) has been extended by the addition of the verb extension
–ngana through the process of affixation to come up with kumonangana which denotes
action done to each other.
83
c. Unitary Participation
This is a type of combinatory coordination where the conjoined constituents are so closely
linked in meaning in such a way that they are referred to as a single object. (Quirk and
Greenbum 1973). For instance, the expression ‘kolo ne nkasa’ (older and younger) carries
the meaning of a single entity and not as two items that can be separated. The coordinate
structure ‘kolo ne nkasa’, as a phrase, is also conceptualised as a unit. For instance, one
would say that;
(55)
Kyembe ne Nkwashi [bakolo] ne [nkasa].
[Lit: Kyembe and Nkwashi they-older and younger]
‘Kyembe and Nkwashi are [older] and [younger] brothers.’
In (55), the phrase kolo ne nkasa is made up of conjuncts (kolo and nkasa) which are closely
linked in meaning in such a way that they are referred to as a single object. The only possible
separation is in an instance where one does not use a coordinating conjunction to join the
conjuncts, and forms clauses instead as a strategy.
(56) Kyembe ye kolo, Nkwashi ye nkasa.
[Lit: Kyembe he-is-older, Nkwashi he-is-youger]
‘Kyembe is the older, Nkwashi is the younger.’
4.4.2 Segregatory Coordination
Segregatory coordination is a type of coordination where the conjoined clauses or sentences
can be split into sentences in the underlying structures. When the coordination is segregatory,
it is possible to paraphrase the original sentence into two or more uncoordinated clauses
(Quirk and Greenbaum 1973). Most of the examples in this work that can be separated as
segregatory constructions. For example;
(57) [Muke] ne [Mushima] babeela.
[Lit: Muke and Mushima they-are-sick]
‘[Muke] and [Mushima] are sick’
Is equivalent to;
(58) [Muke wabeela] ne [Mushima wabeela].
84
[Lit: Muke he-is-sick and Mushima he-is-sick]
‘Muke is sick and Mushima is sick.
Further, (59) can be rewritten as in 59 (b).
(59)
(a) Muke [wapoteele Tukiya ndeleshi] ne [Bibusa nsapato].
[Lit: Muke he-bought Tukiya a dress and Bibusa shoes]
‘Muke [bought Tukiya a dress] and [Bibusa a pair of shoes]’
(b) Muke wapoteele Tukiya ndeleshi. Muke wapoteele Bibusa nsapato.
[Lit: Muke he-bought Tukiya a dress. Muke he-bought Bibusa shoes]
‘Muke bought Tukiya a dress. Muke bought Bibusa a pair of shoes’
In 59 (a) above, the coordinate structure is an instance of conjunction reduction. In this
coordination the coordination process is referred to as a reduction of clausal constituents or
sentences. This is because the conjoined phrases are reduced from conjoined sentences. For
example (60) below;
(60)
Banda watemwa masabi kabiji Tembo watemwa nyama.
[Lit: Banda he-like fish and Tembo he-like meat]
‘Banda likes fish andTembo likes meat’
Can be reduced to;
(61)
Banda watemwa masabi ne Tembo nyama.
[Lit: Banda he-like fish and Tembo meat]
‘Banda likes fish and Tembo meat’
In this instance, the verb ‘-temwa’ in the second clause has been omitted through the process
of conjunction reduction. This is an instance of ‘gapping’ (Mathews 2005: 141). That is the
deletion of a verb with or without other elements from the middle of the second and
subsequent clause in a sequence related by coordination.
85
4.5 Nature of And-Coordinate Structures in Kaonde
This section discusses coordination with reference to Phrase Structure Rules (PS- Rules). The
concept of phrase structure has been central in almost all varieties of generative grammar
stemming from Chomsky (1957) for the purpose of representing the fundamental structural
aspects of phrases and sentences. Chomsky proposed PS rules that would generate syntactic
structures. With suitable lexical items, a grammar with these rules would generate any
possible grammatical sentence.
PS-rules are linguistic devices that can be used to generate potentially all and only
grammatical sentences in a given language. There are a number of PS-rules that have been
suggested by Jacobsen (1987) and these include: rule 1 and rule 11, option 1 deal with
coordination. Jacobsen’s (1987) PS rule 11, option 1 deal with coordination of NPs. That is,
the conjuncts to be addressed here are NPs. Hereunder is the manifestation of PS-rule 11,
option 1;
NP → and + NP n, n ≥ 2
This rule states that an NP can consist of two or more NPs that are joined or connected by a
conjunction (in this case, ne) to form a larger NP. This rule is about nouns (subjects) whose
verbs are symmetric. Symmetric verbs such as kwamba (to talk) are normally defined as
predicates that have a bidirectional relation between their participants built into the meaning
of the verb. For example, (61) below shows that John and Mary are engaged in a
conversation (not, for example, that they are addressing each other but in a conversation).
(62)
[John] ne [Mary] babena kwamba.
[Lit: John and Mary they-are to-talk]
‘[John] and [Mary] are talking’
In the above example, both John and Mary stand as the originators and receivers of the
activity described (Dolling et al 2008: 345). Therefore, symmetric verbs are verbs that can be
read from either ends without changing the meaning as shown is (63) below.
(63)
[Mary] ne [John] babena kwamba.
[Lit: Mary and John they talking]
‘[Mary] and [John] are talking.’
86
Furthermore, sentence (63) above can be presented using an X-scheme to give general
information about what dominates what, plus a separate set of mechanisms for dictating the
order of constituents (William 2003: 337). As stated earlier, and-coordination always has at
least two conjuncts. According to Johnnessen (1998) as quoted by De Vos (2005),
coordination has a specifier-complement structure, where the first conjunct is in the specifier
of a coordination phrase headed by a coordinator AND. The second conjunct is a complement
of AND. For example, & = coord (for coordinator); the & itself is labelled as a & with no bar,
and the units labelled with one bar (&’) and with two bars (&”) are successive phrases of
which it is head. Comp (for complement) is a cover term for anything that combines with a &
to form a & with a single bar; spec (for specifier) is a similar term for anything that combines
with a &’ to form a &” (Mathews 2005: 405). Thus, the phrase John ne Mary will be
projected as follows;
Figure 25: Coordinate Structure of NP John ne Mary
In Figure 25 above, it is clear that NPs in Kaonde can be coordinated using a form of ‘ne’ to
come up with a coordinate structure. This actually indicates that coordinated NPs in Kaonde
cannot only be analysed using the PS rules but also be represented using the X-scheme in
giving general information about the structure of coordination in Kaonde. Thus, using the PS
rules for English as presented by Jacobson (1987), rule 11, option 1 can and does apply in
Kaonde on coordinate structures.
87
In the discussion above, we have assumed coordination of two conjuncts. As is well known,
coordinate structures may be iterated many times. In an event where a coordinate structure
has more than two conjuncts, the coordinator is used after each and every conjunct. In (64)
below, the coordinate structure is made up of four noun phrases that are linked together.
(64) [Mabombwe], ne [mu mazubo enu], ne [ku bakalume benu], ne [ku bantu benu]….
[the frog] and [your houses] and [your servants] and [your people]’
After each item the coordinator ne is used. Conjoined NPs of this sort would thus have the
structure in Figure 26.
Figure 26: Polysyndetic Coordinate Structure
Where there are more than two items connected, the coordinate structure in Kaonde can be
formalized as;
NP → ne [N] and [N]ⁿ,
88
where ⁿ represents any number of coordinate elements. This can be seen as exemplified in
(64) above where the conjuncts are more than two. For instance, in (64) the NPs mabombwe,
mazubo enu and bantu benu have been combined polysyndetonically using ne thereby,
forming a structure ne [N] and [N]n. This rule states that an NP can consist of any number of
nouns that are conjoined by the conjunctor ne after each and every conjunct to form a larger
NP.
Jacobsen’s (1987) PS-rule (1) deals with sentential coordination. That is, the conjuncts to be
addressed under this rule are clauses and/or sentences. Hereunder is the manifestation of PSrule 1;
S
{and/or} Sn, n ≥ 21
This rule states that a sentence can consist of two sentences that are joined or connected by a
conjunction (and/or) to form one or more compound sentences. For example, the two simple
sentences 65 (a) and (b) below can be joined by the coordinator kabiji to form a compound
sentence 65 (c);
(65)
(a) Mulolo nyama waatama bingi.
[Lit; snake animal it-bad very]
‘A snake is a very bad animal’
(b). Bantu kechi baamutemwane.
[Lit: people not they-like-it-not]
‘People do not like it’
(c). [Mulolo nyama waatama bingi] kabiji [bantu kechi baa mutemwane].
[Lit: snake animal it-bad very and people not they-like-it-not]
‘[A snake is a very bad animal] and [‘people do not like it]’
Further, 65 (a) above can be projected using an X-scheme to give general information as
follows;
89
Figure 27: Sentential Coordination
4.6 Agreement in And-Coordination
According to Mathews (2005) agreement or concord is a form of cross-reference between
parts of a sentence or phrase. Agreement happens when a word changes form depending on
the other words to which it relates. According to Guthrie (1948) in Bantu languages concord
is operated by means of prefix agreement, a fact which is one of the criteria used to determine
whether or not a given language is to be accepted as Bantu. Kaonde, like all other Bantu
languages, has numerous noun classes. Verbs must agree in class with their subjects and
objects. The following chart presents these concords out in full. (SC = subject concord, EC =
enumerative concord, PC1 = possessed concord, AC = adjective concord, OC1 = first object
concord, OC2 = second object concord, PC2 = possessor concord).
Table 5: Concord Chart (Mann and Wright 1977)
class
SC
EC
PC1
AC
OC1
OC2
PC2
1(a,b)
u/a
u
wa
mu
mu
ye
nje
2
ba
ba
ba
ba
iba
bo
bo
3
u/a
u
wa
mu
mu
ye
nje
4
i
i
ya
i
ii
yo
yo
5
ji
ji
ja
ji
iji
jo
jo
90
6
a
a
aa
a
ia
oo
oo
7
ki
ki
kya
ki
iki
kyo
kyo
8
bi
bi
bya
bi
ibi
byo
byo
9
i
i
ya
i
ii
yo
yo
10
i
i
ya
i
ii
yo
yo
11
lu
lu
lwa
lu
ilu
lo
lo
12
ka
ka
ka
ka
ika
ko
ko
13
tu
tu
twa
tu
itu
to
to
14
bu
bu
bwa
bu
ibu
bo
bo
15
ku
ku
kwa
ku
iku
ko
ko
16
pa
pa
pa
pa
ipa
po
po
17
ku
ku
kwa
ku
iku
ko
ko
18
mu
mu
mwa
mu
imu
mo
mo
According to Mann (1977) as adopted from Carl Meinhoff in his Ur-Bantu, nouns in Kaonde
(like in all Bantu languages) are divided into classes according to their prefix. Nouns in the
same class often, though not always, have something in common. This is a very salient
feature of the semantics of classes in Bantu because classes may be used as a way of deriving
a lexeme from another lexeme for example to form diminutive, pejorative, abstractions or
have honorific reference. Nouns in the same class will often have something in common in
their meaning. This is exemplified in chapter one Table four which shows the pairs and their
semantic meaning.
According to Wright (2007: 19) “nouns may be represented in a sentence by a number of
concordial elements which are identical with or related to the noun prefix. For each class
there are forms for subject, for adjective, for object, for possessor and for being possessed.”
In the sentences below, verbs agree in class with their subjects and objects nouns using
concord makers as shown below.
(66)
Kilaalo kimo kyabo kisakukwana.
[Lit: mat one theirs it-will-be-enough]
‘One mat of theirs will be enough’
Sentence (66) will be realized as (67) below in its plural.
91
(67)
Bilaalo bibiji byabo bisakukwana.
[Lit: mats two theirs they-will-be-enough]
‘Two mats of theirs will be enough’
This list of class shows that singular-plural discrimination is often correlated with the
alteration of prefixes between the two (2) classes in gender, number or case. Thus, certain
classes can be labelled ‘singular’ and others ‘plural’. This is apparently confirmed by the use
of class 8 (bi-) as plural prefix of grammatical number in (67), while class 7 (ki-) is used as
the singular prefix of the different grammatical number in (66).
Class and number are indicated with prefixes (or sometimes their absence), which are not
always the same for nouns, adjectives and verbs. Subjects agree with their verbs, for example,
in the sentence below, the subject -taata (father) agrees with the verb –ya (to go) in number.
(68)
Bataata baya kukisankanyi.
[Lit: father he-has-gone to-the-market]
‘My father has gone to the market’
In coordinate structures, the subject and the verb should agree in number to achieve concord.
If two NPs are conjoined, they should agree with the verb in number, in this case, the prefix
for the verb will be pluralized as the conjoined phrases will be treated as plural. That is, when
NPs are coordinated, the agreement appears to be with the whole conjoined phrase as a
whole;
(69)
[Mulenga] ne [Mubambe] baya kukisankanyi.
[Lit: Mulenga and Mubambe they-have-gone to-the-market]
‘[Mulenga] and [Mubambe] have gone to the market’
(70)
[Bakabwa] ne [banzolo] baji pangye.
[Lit: dogs and chickens they-are outside]
‘[Dogs] and [chickens] are outside’
(71)
[Tupasa twawama] ne [tupona twawama] tutanwa kukisankanyi.
[Lit: axes good and chairs good they-are-found to-the-market]
92
‘[Good axes] and [good chairs] are found at the market’
In (69) above, the verb –ya has the plural prefix ba (class 2) to form baya which agrees with
the whole conjoined phrase ‘Mulenga ne Mubambe’. Equally, in (70) the nouns ‘bakabwa’
and ‘banzonlo’ are in the same class - 2. That is, they have the same prefix ‘ba’, therefore,
the verb –ji (‘are’) agrees with the whole NP to be realised as ‘baji’. In (71) the adjective ‘wama’ (good) and the verb ‘–tanwa’ (found) have the prefix ‘tu’ to achieve concord with the
noun ‘tu-pasa’ (axe) and ‘tu-pona’ (chair). This is because the two nouns are in class 13.
The above is true when conjuncts are in the same class. However, it becomes problematic
when the conjuncts are of different classes. For instance, if you have to conjoin two nouns of
different classes, it would be challenging if not impossible for them to agree with the verb.
For example;
(72)
(a) Mubambe uji pangye. (class 1)
[Lit: Munambe he-is outside]
‘Mubambe is outside’
(b) Kipona kiji pangye. (Class 7)
[Lit: chair it-is outside]
‘Chair is outside’
In 72 (a) and (b) above, it is difficult to determine the prefix to be taken by the verb when the
two clauses are coordinated. This is because the whole noun phrase will be treated as plural.
Therefore, (73) below is not acceptable.
(73)
*[Mubambe] ne [kipona] baji pangye. (Class 2)
[Lit: Mubambe and chair they-are out side]
‘Mubambe and chair are outside.’
The problem in (73) above is a semantic one because in Kaonde, like all Bantu languages, the
prefixes have pairs of classes which form class genders, and these have a bearing on the
concord maker to be used. Thus in the above sentence the concord maker ba is defective.
Different pairs of classes will have meanings or express meanings that are central to all nouns
found in that particular class. Therefore, (73) above is not acceptable because the meaning of
the nouns ‘Mubambe’ and ‘kipona’ are not semantically similar. One denotes human beings
while the other denotes animals, respectively. This is so because the pair of the class system
expresses semantic meaning with regard to nouns that are found within each pair. That is
93
nouns in the same class will often have something in common in their meaning (as shown in
Table 1 above), hence, the difficulty in pairing two classes with different denotation.
Therefore, one has to use a different strategy in order to coordinate conjuncts of this nature.
In this case, one has to avoid conjunction reduction and instead have two separate clauses as
exemplified in (74) below.
(74)
(a). [Mubambe uji pangye] ne [kipona kiji bangye].
[Lit: Mubambe he-is outside and the chair it-is outside]
‘[Mubambe is outside] and [the chair is outside]’
Or ideally,
(b). Mubambe uji pangye ne katemo nako kaji pangye. (Class 1 and 7,
respectively)
[Mubambe he-is outside and axe also it-is outside]
‘Mubambe is outside and the axe also is outside’
(c). Kapasa kapona ne jibula naajo japona. (Class 12 and 5, respectively)
[Lit: the axe ha-fallen and the leaf also it-has fallen]
‘The axe has fallen and the leaf has also fallen’
(d). Tung`onyi twakyongo ne bakoolwe naabo bakyongo. (Class 13 and 2,
respectively)
[Lit: birds they-are-noisy and monkeys also they-are-noisy]
‘Birds are noisy and monkeys are also noisy’
(e). Bataata bangovu ne ng`ombe nayo yangovu. (Class 2 and 9, respectively)
[Lit: father he-is-strong and the cow also it-is-strong]
‘Father is strong and the cow is strong’
If small clauses are conjoined, then plural agreement is impossible; that is, singular
agreement is the only option for the sentence to be acceptable.
The noun class system is characterized by agreement with constituents outside the noun
phrase based on semanticity and agreement. Nouns in KiKaonde are made up of a prefix and
a stem. The stem remains constant and bears the meaning of the word and the prefix can
change to show plural or some other modification of the meaning. For example,
Mwana ‘child’
Baana ‘children’
94
‘mu’ and ‘ba’(Class 1 and 2, respectively) are variable prefixes of the invariable stem `–
ana’. The prefix in this case is therefore important as it gives a stem its grammatical form,
that is, either plural or singular. All other parts of speech (outside the noun phrase) have to
agree with the noun prefix as shown in (70) and (71) above.
4.7 Semantic Analysis of And-Coordination
In linguistics, semantics is the study of meaning in linguistic expressions, as inherent at the
level of words, phrases and sentences (Mathews 2005). That is, the study of meaning of
linguistic units and the relations they exhibit in a natural language. In this case, one looks for
general rules that bring out the relationship between form which is the observed arrangement
of words in sentences and meaning. The idea that meaningful units combine systematically to
form larger units, and understanding sentences is a way of working out the combination, is
probably the most important theme in semantics. This section discusses the semantic
functions of and-coordinators (ne, na, and kabiji) in Kaonde by assigning meaning to phrases
and sentences based on their syntax.
To start with, the variants of the and-equivalent in Kaonde may express different meanings in
a conjunction. In coordinating predicates the conjoined predicates may be described as
sharing the same subject. This is because for coordination of two or more predicates to take
place, they must be coreferential with the subject of the other. For example:
(75)
Bansongwakazhi basatu [bakelelwe] kabiji [bebajimwine].
[Lit: girls three they-were-late and they-were-punished]
‘Three girls came late and they were punished.’
In (75) the subject of the second predicate bebajimwine is coreferential with the subject of the
first predicate bakelelwe. Thus (75) is synonymous to (76) below which differs from it only
in that a coreferential /be/ ‘they’ is inserted before the second verb -ba-jimwine ‘were
punished’.
(76)
[Basongwakazhi basatu bakelelwe] kabiji [bansongwakazhi basatu bebajimwine].
[Lit: girls three they-were-late and girls three they-were-punished]
‘[Three girls came late] and [three girls were punished].’
95
In (75) the conjuncts are predicates. That is, in (75) there is one clause with conjoined
predicates as can be seen below.
Figure 28: Coordination of Predicates
In (75) on the other hand, the conjuncts are clauses. That is, two clauses have been conjoined
together by a conjunction as shown in Figure 29 below.
96
Figure 29: Coordination of Clauses
Because the conjoined predicates will show different activities, they may logically convey
(for declarative clauses) different semantic implications of the coordinate structure according
to our presupposition and knowledge of the world. The relation connoted by the link between
two or more conjuncts may vary. Thus the general principle of communicative dynamism
determines that when two or more units are coordinated, the second is placed in focus of the
background of the first (Quick and Greenbaum 1973). Coordinated predicates, therefore,
may even depart from their original meaning to mean chronological sequence, result,
contrast, condition or pure addition.
For instance, coordination may show chronological sequence in that events are put in the
order in which they occur in time. For instance, in 77 (a) and (b) the second clauses are
chronologically sequent to the first.
(77)
(a) Watwela, ne kwikala.
[Lit: s/he-entered and s/he-sat down]
‘[s/he entered] and [sat down]’
(b) Kamono waoovwele mwaana nekumwivwika bivwaalo.
[Lit: kamono she-washed child and dressed-it cloths]
‘Kamono [washed the child] and [dressed it].’
In 77 (a) and (b), the entering and washing of the child happened first then the sitting down
and the dressing later, respectively. Thus if, for instance, the second clause in 77 (b) is tensemarked to indicate that its content is prior chronologically, coordination of the two clauses is
unacceptable in the intended meaning as in (78) below.
(78)
*Kamono wavwikile mwaana bivwaalo nekumoomvwa.
[Lit: kamono she-dressed up the child cloths and-to-washed-it]
‘Kamono [dressed up the child] and [washed it].’
Furthermore, coordinate structures may imply sequence and result. For example, in (79)
below, the first conjunct presents the circumstance (frequently the circumstantial
97
background) enabling the event described in the second conjunct to take place. This entails
that the order of clauses also reflects chronological sequence.
(79)
Bamuzhootwele nekujila wajijile.
[Lit: s/he-was-pinched and s/he-cried]
‘[S/he was pinched] and [s/he cried]’
In (79) the pinching triggers the crying thereby conveying a ‘cause and effect’ relationship
between conjuncts. (79) exemplifies scene-setting coordination (SceCo), where the predicate
in the first conjunct seems to set the scene for the action denoted by the verb in the second
conjunct to take place. The conjuncts are intrinsically temporally ordered and always occur in
a temporally dependent sequence.
And-coordination can also be additive. For instance, the second clause in (80) is a ‘pure’
addition to the first, the only requirement being that the two statements are congruent in
meaning.
(80)
[Peter uji namyootoka yavula] kabiji [uji na maali].
[Lit: Peter he-is motor-cars a lot and he-has money]
‘[Peter has a lot of motor cars] and money]’
Generally, in such kind of coordination the conjuncts can be reversed without changing the
meaning. For instance, sentence (80) above can be rewritten as in (81) without necessarily
changing the meaning.
(81)
[Peter uji na maali] kabiji [uji namyootoka yavula].
[Lit: Peter he-is with money and he-is with-motor-cars a lot]
‘[Peter has money] and [has a lot of motor cars].’
Thus, (80) and (81) can be formalized as;
A + conjunction + B = B+ conjunction + A
However, this potentially is dependent on the relationship of the meaning between the
coordinated units as discussed in this chapter above. For instance, (82) is not acceptable.
(82)
*Wamwipaya ne kumwiipaya, wamupumine mumutwe.
98
[Lit: s/he-killed-her/him and to-kill-her/him, s/he-hit-her/him in-head]
‘[S/he killed him/her] and [hit him/her in the head].’
Although the and-equivalent coordinators in Kaonde have the most general meaning and use,
the only restriction on the use of ne, na or kabiji is the pragmatic one. For instance, (83)
below is odd because it posses challenges to find any connection between the clauses;
(83)
*[Awe nsongwakazhi walamba] kabiji [bantu bonse bengijila pamo].
[Lit: this girl is-pretty and people all they-work together]
‘[This girl is pretty] and [all people work together]’
Sentence (83) above is not acceptable because the conjuncts have no sufficient background in
common to justify their combination. Thus, it is odd to conjoin the two conjuncts simply
because it would be difficult to find any connection between the content of the conjuncts
(Quick and Greenbaum 1973).
4.8
Summary
This chapter presented an analysis and discussion of the data collected on and-coordination
in Kaonde. It provided coordinated structures in Kaonde that make use of and as a
coordinating conjunction. It began by identifying and-coordinator(s), that is, coordinator(s)
that are equivalent to and in Kaonde, and these are ne and kabiji. Further, it categorised the
coordinate structures according to their types and gave an account of coordinated structures
in Kaonde. For instance, it was observed that lexical or phrasal categories such as nouns (N)
and noun phrases (NP), verbs (V) and verb phrases (VP), Adjectives (Adj) and adjective
phrases (AP) and prepositional phrases (PP) can be coordinated to form larger syntactic units
of the same category. Clauses and/or sentences will be combined to form larger syntactic
units such as compound and complex sentences. Furthermore, it discussed the nature of andcoordination in Kaonde using Government and Binding theory. Conjuncts in Kaonde are
often alike in syntactic category. Lastly, it was observed that other than connecting
constituents, and-coordinators will express different semantic functions. For instance,
coordination may show chronological sequence or may imply sequence and result. This may
occur in an event where the first conjunct presents the circumstance enabling the event
described in the second conjunct to take place. Additionally, coordination may also show a
‘cause and effect’ relationship where the predicate in the first conjunct seems to set the scene
for the action denoted by the verb in the second conjunct to take place.
99
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 General
This chapter concludes the whole study by discussing the findings of the investigation in
summary and, thereafter, provides some recommendations for further studies on the study of
coordination not only in Kaonde but also in other Bantu languages.
5.1 Summary of the Findings of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of and-coordination in Kaonde. In order
to meet this goal, firstly, the study sought to identify and-coordinators in Kaonde. That is, it
tried to identify coordinators in Kaonde that are equivalent to ‘and’ in English. From the
study, it was observed that Kaonde has about two (2) forms or variants of the coordinator
‘and’. These include; ne and kabiji. When coordinating elements, the variants of the
coordinator ‘and’ will be used depending on the nature of conjuncts. For example, the form
of ‘and’ used for joining adjectives and that for verbs is different. The one used for common
is different from the one used when conjoining proper nouns. Kabiji which has the near
translation of ‘again’ is used to coordinate adjectives and some clauses. It is, however, not
always used as a coordinator. Ne, which is also realized as the adposition na ‘with’, is used to
conjoin common nouns. It is also used to conjoin verbs, and is usually attached to the second
conjunct as an adjunct with the infinitive ‘ku’ (‘to’). Note that na and ne will be used to
conjoin words that begin in a vowel sound. The one to be used among the three will
dependent on the phonology of the words that follows it.
Secondily, the study sought to identify conjuncts that are coordinated by and-equivalent in
Kaonde. It was established that any lexical or phrasal category can be coordinated by either
ne, na, kabiji or nothing at all in Kaonde; lexical categories, phrasal categories and clausal or
sentential categories. For lexical categories, content words such as nouns, verbs, adjectives,
adverbs and prepositions can be conjoined by a coordinator (na, ne and kabiji) to form a
coordinate structure. Most of these categories will be coordinated according to their kind,
hence, coordination of likes. Noun phrases (NP), verb phrases (VP), adjective phrases (AP)
and prepositional phrases (PP) can also be conjuncts. In the same vein, sentences can also be
conjoined to form larger sentences. The focus on sentential conjunction is from a view that
only sentences are conjoined in the underlying structure. It is therefore through the process of
conjunction reduction that the surface structures of the sentences are produced. Thus, the
process also referred to as a conjunction reduction.
100
Thirdly, the study sought to examine how and when the coordinators na, ne and kabiji are
used in Kaonde. From the data collected and analyzed, it was observed that coordinators are
used whenever one needs to connect or link two or more linguistic units. When expressing
meaning that is coordinated, Kaonde speakers will use conjunctions such as the ones stated
above. However, conjunctions will not always be used when conjoining conjuncts especially
when they are sentences. Conjunctions coordinate at least two linguistic units and these are
usually equal or similar in status, hence, coordination of likes. However, sometime conjuncts
are not like categories. For instance, one can coordinate a noun and an adjective phrase,
hence coordination of unlikes.
In a coordinate structure, the conjunction will usually appear after every conjunct added to it.
Hence the structure;
Item + item + item + item,
This shows that most coordinate structures in Kaonde are polysyndetic when one has more
than two items to conjoin. When coordinating sentences no conjunctions are visibly present
in most cases. Therefore, coordination of sentences is usually asyndetic because no
conjunctions are overtly used; otherwise, all coordinate structures are asyndetically
coordinated. Note that, an element from one conjunct cannot be moved out of that structure.
In addition, the study sought to examine the nature of coordinate structures in Kaonde. It was
observed that a coordinate structure is usually made up of at least two conjuncts (which can
either be lexical categories, phrasal categories, clauses or sentences) and a conjunction. The
conjuncts will be conjoined together by a conjunction to form one larger linguistic unit of the
same kind. This generalization may be formalized as the following phrase structure rule,
where α is any phrasal category, lexical category, clause or sentence;
α→ α {na/ne/kabiji} α
This covers the more straight forward kind of coordination where you have linguistic units of
equal status, that is, coordination of likes. It should be noted that the conjuncts each time
there is coordination are indisputably constituents.
Lastly, it was observed that conjunctions play a very important role in ensuring that
coordinated meaning is expressed. The study explored semantic functions of andcoordination in Kaonde. It was observed that and-coordination denotes a relationship
101
between and/or among conjuncts in a sentence. The conjunctions may show a cause and
effect relationship between conjuncts. They are also used to show chronological sequence,
contrast, condition or simply addition. Thus, by linking conjuncts in a coordinate structure,
they establish relationships that otherwise are not easy to understand.
5.2 Recommendations
Conducting this study has shown that there is a lot that can be done on the topic of
coordination in Kaonde. Looking at the scope of this study, it is very clear that there are a
number of areas that can be investigated in order to have a broader understanding of this
phenomenon. There is need to conduct further studies on coordination in Kaonde. This
should be aimed at investigating the whole process of coordination which includes ‘or’ and
‘but’.
Because it has been observed that coordination is language specific, there is need to
investigate comparatively the phenomenon of coordination in Kaonde and coordination in
other languages. This is important in that it will help establish whether or not coordination in
Kaonde resembles or differs from that of other languages, and establish the degree of
similarity and/ or differences if at all there are any resemblances or differences.
There is also a need to conduct a study that will analyse coordinate structure constraints. This
is important as it will account for the correct distribution of grammatical sentences which
incorporate the coordinating conjunction in Kaonde. This should provide explicit rules which
can assign structural description to coordinating conjunctions so that the well-formedness of a
compound sentence or phrase will be determined on the basis of grammatical description.
Although this study has tried to look at agreement in coordinate structures, there is need to
extensively examine Concord/Agreement in Kaonde coordinate structures. This can be a very
interesting topic owing to the fact that concord in Kaonde like all Bantu languages is
achieved through affixation based on the class system.
102
REFERENCES
Asher, R.E (1994) The Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol.2 Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh
Bluhdorn, H (2007) Subordination and Coordination in Syntax, Semantics and Discourse:
Evidence from the study of connectives. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache
Mannheim.
Bright, W (1992) International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics Vol. 2 Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Broughall, W. (1924) A Short Introductory Dictionary to the Kaonde Language with
English. London: The Religious Tract Society
Central Statistical Office (2012) 2010 Census of Population and Housing: National
Analytical Report. Lusaka: Central Statistical Office
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton: The Hague/Paris: Mouton
Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures.
Mouton: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Mouton: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2005). Three Factors in Language Design". Linguistic Inquiry 36 - 46)
Coghill, J.S (1997) English Grammar. London: Oxford University Press
Crystal, D (1991) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (3rd ed) Massachusetts:
Blackwell Publishers
Dayler, S (1987) Quasi-Comitative Coordination in Polish. Linguistics P. 363 – 414
De Vos, M. (2005). The syntax of pseudo-coordination in English and Afrikaans. Utrecht:
LOT Press
103
De Vos, M. (2009). An Argument for VP Coordination: Scene-Setting Coordition and
Weak Island. London: Mortimer House
Dolling, J et al (2008) Event Structure in Lingustic Form and Interpretation: Gale,
Cengage Lerning
Dowty, D.R (1992) Toward a Minimlist Program Theory of Syntactic Structure: Paper
prepared for the Tilburg Conference on Discontious Constituency. Febraury 24, 1992
Ohio State University.
Drellishak, S (2005) A Survey of Coordination Strategies in the World Languages.
Washington: Washington University Press
Dzameshie A. K (1999) Structure of Coordination in Ewe: Journal of West African
Languages XXV2.1, pp 35-41.
Guthrie, M (1948) Gender, Number and Person in Bantu Languages: Bullet of the School
of Orientals and African Studies. Vol.12 No.3/4 pp 847-856.
Haegeman, L (1994) The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Halliday, M (2004) Introduction to Functional Grammar, (3rd Ed). London: Haddler Arnold
Haspelmath, M (2000) Coordination: in Shopen (Ed) Language Typology and Linguistic
Description, (2nd Ed). Cambridge: CUP
Heine, B and Nurse, D (1978) African Languages: An Introduction. London: Longman.
Horrocks, G (1987) Generative Grammar: London: Longman
Fumi, N and Myung-Kwan, P (2003) Coordination, Agree and Move: Studies in Generative
Grammar, Volume 13, Number 1, 149 149-156.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K, John Drury, and Juan Carlos Castillo (2000). No more EPP.
WCCFL 19: pp153-166.
Jacobsen, B (1978) Transformation-Generative Grammar: An Introductory Survey of its
104
Genesis and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Johannessen, J. B. (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Komp and Tramp (2010) Proposal and Thesis Writing. Nairobi: Pauline Publishers
Lefebvre, C. (2005) Coordinating Constructions in Fonbge with Reference to the Haitin
Creole. Oxford: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary. Anthropoly Leipzy
Lisimba, M. (1982) A Luyana Dialectology. Lusaka: Unpublished M.A Thesis, Cambridge:
Mambwe, K (2008) Some Linguistic Variations of Kaonde: A Dialectological Study.
Lasaka: Unpublished M.A Thesis, University of Zambia.
Mann, M et al (1977) Language in Zambia: Grammatical Sketches vol.1 Bemba and
Kaonde. Institute of African Studies. Lusaka: Government Printers
Mathews, P.H (2005) The Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ministry of Education (1977) Zambian Language Orthography. Lusaka: NECZAM.
Miti, L.M (1988) Tonal Variation in Zambian Chinyanja Variaties: An Autosegmental
Analysis. Unpublishe PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge University: London
Mitrovic, M (2011) The Syntax of Coordination in Sanskrit. Cambridge: Unpublished
M.Phil. Thesis, University of Cambridge
Mungenda O.M and Mungenda A.G (2003) Research Methods: Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies.
Munn, Alan (1987) Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Maryland.
Mutambakyalo, M. (2005) Kyapusana. Lusaka: Kenneth Kaunda Foundation.
105
Nguyen, T.V.L (2004) The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Dar Es Salaam: Yangen Myanmer.
Nkolola, M.M (1997) An Analysis of the Morphophonology, Syntax and Semantics of the
Applied, Causative and Passive Verb Extensions in Tonga. Lusaka: Unpublished
P.hd Thesis, University of Zambia
Nkolola-Wakumelo, M. (2004) An application of Government Binding Theory to the analysis
of the syntax of the applied and causative verb extensions in Tonga. In Malilime:
Journal of African Languages. 4: 143-187.
Provogac, L (1998) Structure for Coordination: Glot International, Volume 3, Issue 7,
September 1998
Osborne, Timothy, Michael Putnam, and Thomas Gross (2011) Bare phrase structure, labelLess Structures, and Specifier-less Syntax: Is Minimalism becoming a
Dependency Grammar? The Linguistic Review 28: 315–364
Quirk, R and Greenbaum, S (1973) A University Grammar of English. London: Longman
Sells, P (1985) Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories: An Introduction to
Government and Binding Theory, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar
and Lexical Functional Grammar. Leland Stanford: Centre for the Study of
Language and Information.
Stockwell, R (1977) Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambride
University Press
Strong, W and Lester, M (1996) Writer`s Choice: Grammar and Composition. New York:
Glencoe McGraw-Hill
The Bible Society of Zambia (1975) Buku wa Lesa. Lusaka: Bible Society Resources Ltd
106
The Watch Tower Bible and Track Society of South Africa (2012) Kwamba kwa Usope
(01/08/12). Randeview, Krugerdorpd, RSA
The Watch Tower Bible and Track Society of South Africa (2012) Kwamba kwa Usope
(01/09/12). Randeview, Krugerdorpd, RSA
Thomson, A. J and A. V. Martinet (1986) A Practical English Grammar (4th ED).
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Vaux, B and Cooper, J (1997) Introduction to Linguistic Field Method. London: Oxford
University Press.
Wang, W. C (2010) The Corpus-Based Study of the Saisiyat Conjunctor `Isaa. Taipei:
National Taiwan Normal University
Welmers, William .E (1976) A Grammar of Vai. London: University of Califonia
Press
William, J.F (2003) International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics, 2nd Ed. Vol. 2. Oxford:
Oxford University.
Wright, J. L (2007) An Outline of Kikaonde Grammar. Lusaka: Bookworld Publishers.
Zhang, N.N (2009) Coordination in Syntax. Taipei: National Chung–Chung University.
107
APPENDICES
The data presented here employs the convention whereby the conjuncts of coordinate
structures are marked using square brackets. The coordinate structure each time includes all
the material that follows the left-most square bracket and precedes the right-most square
bracket. The coordinators appear in italics and bold scripts between the conjuncts. The data is
presented in tabular form and they are put according to the nature of coordinate structures
they belong to. There are basically three columns; the first is for serial numbers, the second is
for the text form and the third one is for glossing. In the column for glossing, some texts have
been literally translated for the sake of clarity.
Appendix 1: Coordination of Parts of Noun Phrases
Serial
Kaonde
Gloss
number
1
[Mukwemba] ne [bakwaabo] baya ku [Mukwemba] and [his friends] have
sukuulu. N + NP
2
[Kamono]
bansonwakazhi]
gone to school.
[bakwaabo [Kimono] and [her girlfriends] like
ne
baatemwa
kukaya playing football.
mpila. N + NP
3
Mose
waafyamina
[Mukwemba]
ne Moses is hiding from [Mukwemba]
[Jilanda]. N + N
4
and [Jilanda].
[Mukwemba] ne [Mose] ne [Jilanda] [Mukwemba]
baana baba Mutobwe. N + N + N
[Jilanda]
are
and
[Moses]
children
of
and
Mr.
Mutobwe.
5
Monai [ba Kyembe] ne [baana ba Look, [Mr. Kyembe] and [school
sukuulu] baavwaala tuputula. NP + NP
6
going children] are wearing shorts.
Bantu bateemwa kupotesha masabi pa Many people like selling fish at the
kisankanyi, mambo baavula baatemwa market because they like eating
bingi kuja [nshima] na [masabi]. N + N
7
[nshima] and [fish] very much.
Ba Mutobwe baalama [baan’ombe] ne Mr Mutobwe keeps [cattle] and
108
[bambuzhi] ne [mikoko]. N + N
8
Baana
baba
Mutobwe
[goats] and [sheep].
bomvwina Mr. Mutobwe’children listens to
bibafunda [bashaabo] ne [bainaabo]. NP what they are taught by [their father]
+ NP
9
and [their mother].
Leelo bashaabo basakuja [nshima ya Today, their father is going to eat
mataba] ne [masabi aaji kuloba Mose]. [nshima from maize] and [fish that
NP + NP
10
Moses caught].
[Nshima] na [nzolo] yawaama bingi. N + [Nshima] and [chicken] is very
N
11
tasty.
Monai [banzolo] ne [bambuzhi] babeena Look, [chickens] and [goats] are
kuja kajo kapusana-pusana. N
eating different kinds of food.
+N
12
…abe baabakazhi nbasende maali ne These women have gotten money to
kuya na kupota [bivwaalo] ne [bukula]. go and buy [cloths] and [mealieN+N
13
meal].
[Awe waamulume] ne [mukazhanji] [This man] and [his wife] have come
baiya na mootoka waabo. NP + NP
14
[Bafunjishi bonse] ne [banasi bonse] [All the teachers] and [all the
basebenza ku kafulumende. NP + NP
15
nurses] work for the government.
Bantu baavula ku muzhi baja [nshima] Most of the people in the village eat
na [nyama]. N + N
16
with their motor car.
[nshima] and [meat].
Muntu yense uji [na matwi abiji] ne Every person has [two ears] and
[moona umo] ne [meenso abiji] ne [one [nose] and [two eyes] and [one
[nshingo imo]. NP + NP
17
18
neck].
[Muke] ne [bakwaabo] baya ku sukuulu [Muke] and [his friends] have gone
na kufunda. NP + NP
to school to learn.
[Satana] ne [bantu banji] byo bakakeba
When [Satan] and [his people] want
109
kulukuka bantu ba Lesa,…. NP + NP
19
to persecute God’s people…
Anna wapotele [jilaya] ne [nsapato] ne Anna bought [a dress], [a pair of
[kakosa ka mu mukoshi] ne [siketi]. NP shoes], [a necklace] and [a skirt].
+ NP
20
Kuji [ba Bemba] ne [ba Loshi] ne [ba There
Kaonde]
ne
[ba
ngonyi]
ne
[ba [Kaonde],
Tumbuka] ne [ba Tonga].
21
[Naomi] ne [Judith] ne [Maria] ne The
[Chewas],
noisy
girls
are
[Naomi],
[Judith], [Mary] and [Juliet].
begun to eat.
[Nkasobe Ndota] ne [nyengoobe] babena Well, [your little brother Ndota] and
kuya ku sukulu. NP + NP
24
[Ngonis],
[Lozis],
[Aye] ne [bamwatawanji] ne [ba mfumu] [She], [her husband] and [the chief]
batatwile kuja. NP + NP
23
[Bembas],
[Tumbukas] and [Tongas].
[Juliet] bo bansongwakazhi. N + N + N
22
are
[your sister] are leaving for school.
Ba Shalunango babukiletu lukeelo-keelo Shalunango woke up early in the
batola [katemo], [jifumo] ne [ngonga],… morning got [an axe], [a spear] and
N+N+N
[a string].
110
Appendix 2: Coordination of Verb Phrases
Serial
Kaonde
Gloss
number
1
Ba Matana [bafunjisha bansongwakazhi Matana [teaches girls to cook] and
kuteeka] ne [kupyanga mu nzubo]. VP + [sweep the house]
VP
Kamono ne Kapwamichi [bakwashako Kamono and Kapwichi [help their
bainaabo kupyanga mu nzubo] ne mother to sweep the house] and
[kuchapa bivwalo]. VP + VP
[wash cloths]
2
3
…abe baana [bakwashaako bansemi These children [help their parents to
yaabo kujima] ne [kupotesha bishu cultivate] and [sell vegetables at the
kukisankanyi] ne [kutwa mataba]. VP + market] and [to pound maize]
VP + VP
4
Bakwashaako
bashaabo
[kutwaala They [help their father to take cattle
baan’ombe na kuja], [kufina mukaka] for grazing], [milk cows] and [catch
ne [kuloba masabi]. VP + VP + VP
5
fish]
Ku sukuulu banyike [bafunda kuteeka], At school youngsters [learn to cook,
[kupuanga], [kunemba], [kupama mpila] sweep], [write], [play soccer] and
ne [bintu byaapusana pusana]. VP + VP [other different things].
+ VP + VP
6
Ba Mutobwe bafunjisha baana baabo Mr. Mutobwe teaches his children to
[kujima bishu byakupotesha] ne [kuloba [grow vegetables for sale] and [catch
masabi]. VP + VP
7
fish].
Bafunda [kukaya mpila ya kumaboko] They learn how to [play netball] and
ne [kuteeka] ne [kupyanga]. VP + VP + [cook] and [sweep].
VP
8
Bansongwakazhi
bakwashaako Girls help their mothers to [pound
111
bainaabo [kutwa mataba] ne [kutapula maize] and [fetch water].
meema]. VP + VP
9
Bansongwlume
bashaabo
naabo
bakwashaako Boys also help their fathers to [collect
[kuchaaba
nkunyi]
ne firewood] and [build houses].
[kutunga mazubo]. VP + VP
10
Bantu
baavula
kumuzhi
baayuuka Many people in the village know how
[kuluka bibango] ne [kubumba mapuki]. to [neat baskets] and [mould pots].
VP + VP
11
Bansongwalume [bafunda kuluka mape] Boys [learn how to neat baskets] and
ne [kutunga mazubo]. VP + VP
12
[build houses]
Mujilo wawaama mambo [tuteekapo Fire is good because we use it for
nshima] ne [kusokapo mataba]. VP + [cooking nshima] and [roast maize]
VP
13
Awe nsomgwalume [waaji kuponena ku This boy [fell on the stone] and [hurt
jibwe] ne [kwiikozha mu jinungo]. VP + his knee].
VP
14
Watoleele
bukonde
ku He [got the net] and [took it to his
nekutwala
bashaanji. VP + VP
15
Natemwa
father].
kufwenka
nekwendesha I
[like
swimming]
and
[riding
nkinga. VP + VP
bicycles].
16
Bamupakyo, waya nekuya. VP + VP
s/he [has been give] and [has gone].
17
“Bantu
baiyanga
nenyama
nakutambula
nekutoma
kajo People [would come to get [food and
maalwa meat]] and [drink beer]
babakazhi…” VP + VP
18
Bukijitu
nekutwela
wanyemejile
mukachi
kunzubo Quickly
he
[rushed
home]
and
moaketekele [entered inside] where he expected to
kumvwa juwi jabainanji… VP + VP
112
hear his mother`s voice…
19
[Wajinga na mooyo], [[wafukama] ne [He was afraid], [he knelt down],
panshi]] ne [kushinka menso nekutatula [closed
20
21
his
eyes]
and
[started
kuloomba]]. VP + VP
praying].
Ba muka Mumba [baovwele kumenso]
Mrs Mumba [washed her face] and
ne [kusakula nsuki]. VP + VP
[combed her hair].
Pakufika kimanda babalume bapoyele Upon reaching the grave yard, men
kilende
nekulaajika
kikonde [dug a grave] and [layed the corpse in
mumanda… VP + VP
the grave]…
113
Appendix 3: Coordination of Adjectives and Adjective Phrases
Serial
Kaonde
Gloss
number
1
Myootoka [yawaama] kabiji [yaatama].Adj Motor cars are [good] and [bad].
+ Adj
2
Mazubo
aamalata
[aakosa]
kabiji Iron roofed houses are [strong] and
[awaama]. Adj + Adj
[good].
3
Nasaka [kicheche] ne [kikatampe].
I want [a small] and [a big one].
4
Aye maalwa [ashinta] kabiji [akaji sana]. This beer is [intoxicating] and [very
Adj + Adj
5
strong].
Mukazhami [walaamba] kabiji [yatooka]. My wife is [beautiful] and [light].
Adj + Adj
6
Baataata [baleepa] kabiji [bangovu]. Adj + My father is [tall] and [powerful].
Adj
7
Mpenai mango [yabaya] kabiji [yapya]. Adj Give me mango which is [big] and
+ Adj
8
[ripe].
Muke [wajimuka] kabiji [wamaana]. Adj + Muke is [smart] and [intelligent].
Adj
9
Kwajinga [tomato ibiji] ne [kanyense There was [two tomatoes] and [three
usatu]. AP + AP
10
onion].
[Bantu banga] ne [bakabwa banga]? AP + [How many people] and [how many
AP
11
dogs]?
Nasaka [wangovu] kabiji [waleepa]. AP + I want a [powerful] and [tall one].
AP
12
Kuji [bantu batanu], [mikoka makumi There are [five people], [thirty
114
asatu] ne [bambuzhi kitota kimo]. AP + AP
13
sheep] and [one hundred goats].
Kino kichi [kyaleepa] kabiji [kyakosa]. Adj This tree is [tall] and [strong].
+ Adj
14
Ba Kyembe [bakooka] kabiji [bakajipa] My father is [tired] and [annoyed]
mambo batana kunzhubo kafwako bantune. because he found nobody at home.
AP + AP
15
Bataata
bapota
mutanganyika My father has bought [an expensive]
[wamuteengo] kabiji [mupya]. AP + AP
16
Wajinga
[utooka
byonka
and [new trousers].
byanjingatu He was [light just like his father]
bashanji] ne [mubij mukatampe] pamotu and [huge like his father and
nebashanji nebainanji. AP + AP
mother]
115
Appendix 4: Coordination of Prepositions and Prepositional Phrases
Serial
Kaonde
Gloss
number
1
Bafunjisha banyike kukaya bulongo na He/she teaches the children the to play
balwabo [ku sukuulu] ne [ku nzubo]. well with others [at school] and [at
PP + PP
2
home]
Kupaana mushingi [ku bansemi] ne Giving respect [to parents] and [to
[kubakulumpe] kintu kyanema bingi. elders] is an important thing
PP + PP
3
Bantu baya na nkinga [ku kisanakanyi] People go with bicycles [to the market]
ne [ku kipateela]. PP + PP
4
[Mu
taunyi]
ne
[mumizhi]
and [to the hospital].
kuji .[In town] and [in villages] there are
baakapokola bamona myootoka. PP + police officers
PP
5
6
Hotela iji ku bushiya bwa mukwakwa
The hotel is [across the road] and [next
nekubwipi na chichi. PP + PP
to the church].
wa [twelele mukachi] ne [kufuma] He went [in] and [out] quickly.
bukiji bukiji. PP + PP
7
9
Biseela
[Mukapyantoto]
ne The games [in June] and [July] were
[mumankumbinkumbi] bya wamine.
nice.
Waambilega [ne Bibusa] ne [Ben]. PP
She talked [with Bibusa] and [Ben].
+ PP
10
Waile ku [southAfrica], [Malawi] ne He went to [South Africa], [Malawi]
116
11
[Zimbabwe]. PP + PP
and [Zimbabwe].
Tala [pa tebulu] ne [mu filigi]. PP + PP
Check [on the table] and [inside the
refrigerator].
117
Appendix 5: Coordination of Clauses/Sentential Constituent
Serial
Kaonde
Gloss
number
1
[Kimye kimo ba Mukwemba ne ba [At times Mukwemba and Mose go to
Mose
baya
na
kumona
bipama watch soccer]. [And at other times they
bakulumpe mpila]. Kabiji [kimye kimo go and window shop].
baya na kumona bisankanyi biji mu
taunyi]. Clause + Clause
2
[Mu taunyi muji myootoka yaavula [They are many motor cars in town].
bingi].
Kabiji
mikwaakwa
[mu
taunyi
yawaama].
muji And [they are many roads in town].
Clause
+
Clause
3
[Muloolo nyama waatama bingi] kabiji [A snake is a very bad animal] and
[bantu kechi baa mutemwane].
4
[people do not like it].
[Kimye kimo baja nshima na masabi]. [At times they eat nshima with fish].
Kabiji [kimwe kikwabo baja nshima na And [at other times they eat nshima with
nyama]. Clause + Clause
5
Bapwiisha
kaala
mwingilo
meat].
waabo [They have already finished their work]
nekuya baya.
6
and [they have already gone].
[Yobe nganyi] kabiji [wikala kwepi]? [Who are you] and [where do you live]?
Clause + Clause
7
[Mashinda
onse
akwibakebelamo [All the means of searching for him
akankelwe] kabiji [nebantu mumizhi failed] and also [ people in the villages
ikwabo bebabujile byakubula kumona were informed about the missing of
ba Shalunango]. Clause + Clause
8
Shalunango].
[Waumvwine kyongo] ne [kutumina ba [He heard an explosion] and [phoned
kapokola]. Clause + Clause
the police].
118
9
[Waesekela bingi] ne [kukankalwa]. [She tried hard] and [she failed].
Clause + Clause
10
Mpene
maali,
nsaku
kukwasha [Give me some money] and [I’ll help
kunyema. Clause + Clause
11
Twayai
tumupene
you escape].
maali, [Let’s give him some money] and [he
keusakubulako bantu bakwabo byo won’t tell anybody what we did].
twaubilene. Clause + Clause
12
Pakubwela pamuzhi [bantu baikele When getting back to the village [people
nabulanda] kabiji [balaajile pangye were very sad] and [they slept outside
mulungu mutuntulu]. Clause + Clause
13
for thee whole week].
[Ba Lufuyo bajinga bankambo yanji…] [“Lufuyo was his grandmother…] and
kabiji [kechi bamujile amba bainobe [she did not tell his that his mother had
bafwa]... Clause + Clause
14
died”]…
Bana ba sukulu bamwene byaubilwe The pupils saw what happened and they
batatula nekuseka. Clause + Clause
15
Ee, navuluka bulongo, kwajinga kichi Yes I remember clearly, there used to be
kwa mango kyabaya pa nzubo yenu.
16
started laughing.
[…byatemwa
kulondelamo]
a big mango tree in your yard.
kabiji …[they like tracking them] and [hunters
[bibinda kechi byendala peepine]... do not hunt near by]…
Clause + Clause
119
17
[Bantu mumuzhi mwaba Kyapamelu [All the people in Kyapamelu`s village
bonse
bakubwilenga
buya
kabiji
[wakomenenga
bwanji] used to admire his beauty] and [he grow
nalusekeelo]. up to be charming].
Clause + Clause
18
[Ba
Shalunango
bakatampe
bingi]
bajinga
bakibinda [Mr Shalunango was a very big hunter]
kabiji
[muyoyo and [he was well known by people in
mphuzha bayukwanyikilwe kyabaya that area].
bingi kubantu]. Clause + Clause
19
[Ino
yajinga
mulanguluko [This
was
what
Kyapamelu
was
yalangulukilenga ba Kyapamelu] kabiji thinking] and [she could not sleep].
[kechi mumeeso mwaishile tulone].
Clause + Clause
20
[Nanchi munzubo yabo kimye kyonse [So there used to be beer in their house
mwapyanga maalwa] kabiji [bantu everytime] and [people liked these
batemwene bingi bano bantu…] Clause people very much].
+ Clause
120
Appendix 6: Coordination Unlikes
Serial
Kaonde
Gloss
Bill uji [mulukatazho] kabiji [ubena
Bill is [in trouble] and [trying to come
kweseka kutana kwakunyemena] – PP
up with an excuse]. - PP + VP
number
1
+ VP
12
3
Sam wiingila [bufuku] kabiji
Sam works [evenings] and [on
[pakibelushi]. – Adv + PP
weekends]. - Adv + PP
Baile [mambo na byakuja] kabiji
They are leaving [due to the weather]
[basakile kusunga maali]. – P + Clause
and [because they want to save
money]. - PP + Clause
4
5
[Bafumine pamuzhi] kabiji [bantu
They [left the village] and [everyone
bonse bebalondejile]. – VP + Clause
followed them too]. –VP + Clause
[Mukeye keesha] kabiji [nepakina].
[Come
Clause + PP
Thursday].
121
tomorrow]
and
[also
on